Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Conduct of Elections

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Jane Kennedy.]

Mr. Peter Snape: I imagine that on 1 May this year all parliamentary candidates were united in similar feelings. Labour candidates went to the count that evening in the hope that the opinion polls were correct and the expectation that the Labour party would at long last be forming the Government. Candidates from what are now the main Opposition parties had the opposite feelings.
It was not always thus, of course. In 1983, you in your previous role, Madam Speaker, and I went to our respective counts in the town of West Bromwich hoping that the opinion polls were wrong. I hoped that I would be able to hang on against the trend and you hoped that your majority would endure in the way that it had in previous years. So all of us as candidates have similar emotions. If my arithmetic is correct, 3,591 of us shared those emotions on election night on 1 May this year.
The vast majority of those 3,500 candidates stood under their respective party label. Some stood proudly as independents. Some might be regarded as eccentric, although I suppose that the House could argue that one or two of us who stood under party labels could be regarded in the same light. Some candidates had particular axes to grind. The grinding of axes is not unheard of during parliamentary elections, although axe grinders are not conspicuously successful when the votes are added up.
I want to set aside the hopes and ambitions of most of the candidates on 1 May and draw the attention of the House to the conduct of elections. I wish to put some serious matters before you and the House, Madam Speaker. I recognise that electoral fraud was raised in this Parliament, on 21 May, by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). In that debate he dealt exclusively with events in his constituency.
A man called Terry Betts referred to himself in the general election as the "New Labour" candidate. That person had no connection with the Labour party and the description on the ballot paper was, in the opinion of my hon. Friend, deliberately designed to mislead. Similar misleading descriptions were used in many other constituencies by a variety of candidates, in an attempt to pretend that they represented something different from what they did in reality.
Not only candidates from my party were the victims of deception on 1 May. On 18 April—the day after nominations for the general election closed—

representatives of all three major political parties appeared at the High Court of Justice before the honourable Justice Longmore, pleading that there was a threatened breach of section 115(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, in that there was an intent or threat to impede the free exercise of the franchise by means of a fraudulent device or contrivance. The alleged contrivance was that the defendant in each of the cases was telling an untruth about himself in the description in his nomination paper.
The first case that morning involved the then Solicitor-General, the Conservative candidate in Brighton, Pavilion constituency, who was opposed by a man named Huggett, who styled himself on his nomination paper as the "Official Conservative candidate". The second case also involved a Conservative, a former Member of Parliament and a Minister in the previous Government. He faced in the Clwyd, West constituency an opponent who called himself Rod Richard. The Conservative candidate's name was Rod Richards. His opponent described himself as "The Conservatory party candidate".
The third case involved the prospective candidates for Winchester, who were challenged by the same Mr. Huggett who was standing for election to the Brighton, Pavilion seat. In Winchester he described himself as "Top Liberal Democrat for Parliament"—whatever that may be—"a Liberal Democrat Challenge".
The Labour party was also represented before Mr. Justice Longmore.

Mr. Mark Oaten: You have mentioned my constituency and the case of Mr. Huggett. Are you aware that he stood as the "Liberal Democrat Top choice for Parliament"? Are you also aware that we sought out five of the 10 people who had signed his nomination paper and that three of them were prepared to meet the returning officer to claim that they were misled and tricked into signing it? Perhaps you could pick up on that in your speech, because powers must be introduced to overcome that problem.

Madam Speaker: Order. I should just like to remind hon. Members to speak through the Chair.

Mr. Snape: I understand why the hon. Gentleman sought to intervene now; he had the courtesy to let me know that he is involved in a separate court action this morning about the Winchester constituency and will have to leave the Chamber before the debate is concluded.
I was unaware of all the circumstances surrounding Mr. Huggett, but the hon. Gentleman's remarks underline the concern that we should all feel at the fact that the democratic process is being subverted by characters who have no intention to stand for Parliament, which is everyone's right, but want to mislead the electorate deliberately.
The Labour party was also invited to appear before Mr. Justice Longmore on 18 April, the day after nominations closed, because my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman), faced a challenge from, among others, a Mr. William Johnson Smith who described himself as "New Labour". I understand that Mr. Johnson Smith is the son of a distinguished Conservative Member of the House. Afterwards he claimed that he stood under that title for a lark. It is not for me to tell Conservative Members how


they should bring up their children, but I hope that most of them would not approve of their children behaving in that manner.
The examples that I have cited reveal the lengths that some people will go to, to try to mislead the electorate deliberately. I do not believe that any of us would wish to prevent the likes of Screaming Lord Sutch from standing for election on behalf of the Monster Raving Loony party. Over the years, I have acted as minder to various Labour candidates across the midlands and I have had the pleasure of meeting David Sutch on quite a few occasions. He puts up his deposit; organises a few gigs in the constituency in which he is standing; and brings a little joy and happiness to what are normally fairly serious proceedings. Good luck to him.
I would not wish to stop some eccentric characters similar to those who were around in my youth from exercising their right to stand. All of us of a certain age in the House will remember Wing-Commander Bill Boakes, who pedalled his Heath-Robinsonian contraption around various constituencies as he fought by-election after by-election. He described himself as the road safety, public safety, white resident candidate, or something along those lines. He was never successful, but at least he brought a touch of gaiety to the nation.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) fought a serious campaign, but I can remember that he made his victory speech with a 6 ft 5 in transvestite standing in the background with a birdcage on his head. Some hon. Members might feel that such characters bring the parliamentary process into disrepute, but that person paid his money and took his choice, as did the electors. I do not object to such characters popping up at election time for reasons best known to themselves.
During the election, there were no fewer than 19 constituencies in which the Labour party name was misused by candidates. In six cases, the misleading description "New Labour" was used— [Interruption.] I realise from the reaction of some of my hon. Friends that that might have been the case in more than six constituencies. I had better be careful—I was referring to such a description being used fraudulently, but that will not satisfy some of the humorists in the Chamber. Most of my hon. Friends will know what I mean, but I had better abandon that potentially embarrassing topic.

Mr. Alan Clark: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many names were on the ballot paper for the constituency of Hartlepool?

Mr. Snape: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman must tear himself away from the pleasures of Kensington and Chelsea and make his way down the Corridor to the Library, where that information will be readily provided.

Mr. Clark: It is relevant.

Mr. Snape: I am not sure whether that question is relevant to the debate, but given the right hon. Gentleman's distinguished record inside and outside the House, should he feel that it is, I am sure that he will seek to catch your eye later, Madam Speaker.
I should like to refer specifically to the constituency adjacent to mine, West Bromwich, West, which has been represented with such distinction by you, Madam Speaker, for many years. The House will be aware that nominations to stand in the election closed on Thursday 17 April at 5 pm. About 48 hours before that deadline, the west midlands Labour party received information that a candidate would stand in the West Bromwich, West constituency describing himself as "New Labour".
On two occasions before the deadline for nominations, my election agent rang the election office at the council house, Oldbury, in the borough of Sandwell, to ask whether he could have sight of or details on any nominations submitted for the West Bromwich, West constituency and for the four Sandwell boroughs. That request was refused, apparently on the instructions of the acting returning officer and chief executive, Mr. Nigel Summers.
It was only after nominations closed that the information was published—indeed, it was first published in one of the local newspapers. We then learned that one of your opponents at the election, Madam Speaker, was describing himself as "New Labour—Time for Change". That person is not and, as far as I am aware, has never been a member of the Labour party, new or otherwise.
Given that injunctions had already been sought on the following day concerning various other constituencies and we were wrongly denied prior information about that opponent, the regional Labour party was unable to take any form of legal action. As a result of that blatantly misleading description, that candidate received more than 8,000 votes. Without betraying any confidences or transgressing the Official Secrets Act, I can inform the House that there were also literally hundreds of spoilt ballot papers from electors who had erroneously voted twice—both for you, Madam Speaker, and for that "New Labour" candidate, the imposter.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that such conduct is becoming ever more common. In two other constituencies, North-East Bedfordshire and Halifax, candidates who had changed their name by deed poll to that of the defending Member attempted to stand. Had legal action not been taken, electors in those constituencies would have been faced with two candidates called Nicholas Lyell and two candidates called Alice Mahon.
As the second Alice Mahon was a male, it is difficult to imagine that that candidate was doing anything other than attempting to deceive the electors of that constituency. I understand that the returning officer in Halifax declined to refuse that nomination on the ground that he claimed that there was a male pop singer around in the 1960s by the name of Alice Cooper. I note that some of my hon. Friends nod in agreement. They are obviously more trendy than I am—at least, they were in the 1960s.

Mr. Terry Lewis: Perhaps we are older.

Mr. Snape: I shall settle for that description. My hon. Friends might well remember Alice Cooper—the nearest I can get is the song "A Boy Named Sue"—but that name did not arise from the nomination procedures before 1 May.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that, where information is available, action can be taken by any of the political parties to try to prevent an abuse of the


democratic process. I am most concerned that in West Bromwich, West, we were denied even that elementary right and, although I have since written to the chief executive, I do not know why information regarding the nature of nomination papers before nominations closed—information that was readily available elsewhere—was denied us there.
I assure you, Madam Speaker, that had that information, which should have been available, been given to us, the Labour party in the west midlands would have taken prompt legal action. I can say that because I chaired the regional campaign committee during the election; when such cases arose, there was regular contact between regional officers and Labour party headquarters to see what action could be taken. As far as I am concerned, action would have been taken in your constituency, Madam Speaker, regardless of the fact that you and I have been political colleagues for many years and regardless of any Speaker's former political affiliation. The question whether any Speaker should be opposed is one for the political parties and I hope that hon. Members on both sides will agree that, if any Speaker is opposed, it should be based on fairness, not on attempted misleading fraud.
My hon. Friend the Minister will also be aware that there is even less protection against such misrepresentation in local elections than in a parliamentary contest. A number of unitary and county council elections were also held on 1 May this year, but is my hon. Friend aware that, in the new unitary authority of Bracknell, no fewer than four candidates who described themselves as "New Labour", but who had no connection whatever with the Labour party, appeared on the ballot paper?
Those candidates so split the Labour vote that the Bracknell Conservative party achieved overall political control, thus rendering any legal challenge—had one been possible—impossible. Legally, there is nothing that can be done, although the unfairness of such an abuse of the electoral procedure is all too obvious. I should tell Conservative Members that, although their party might have benefited in Bracknell, in other parts of the country and especially in the parliamentary elections they, too, were penalised by such action.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not only a question of past malpractice? When Scottish and Welsh Assemblies are established and if, as I hope, we move to a regional list system for the European Parliament, the question of the correct description of political parties will become even more important and pressing.

Mr. Snape: Although I cannot join my hon. Friend in willingly going along with a list system— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am not alone on Government Benches in being a founder member of the first-past-the-post system. Although it is not, strictly speaking, a matter for this debate, I have to tell my hon. Friend that I remain so committed. However, whatever the electoral system in future, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the likelihood of abuse. Given the fact that Scottish and Welsh devolution will bring more elections to both countries, the issue has to be sorted out sooner rather than later.
I do not underestimate the difficulty inherent in attempting to change the law, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that something has to

be done—and done quickly—to prevent candidates from deliberately misdescribing themselves and using political party titles to which they have no right. None of us would object to the descriptions "Independent Labour", "Independent Conservative" or "Independent Liberal". Such descriptions make it quite clear that the candidate, while having some sympathy with a specific political party, is standing as a candidate in his or her own right; but I hope that action will be taken against those who deliberately attempt to mislead.
In the earlier debate, the Minister who replied mentioned the use of party logos on ballot papers. Such procedures do not seem to cause great problems elsewhere in the world; a change in the law to protect party logos and a strengthening of the Representation of the People Act 1983—perhaps to provide for a specific offence of using a description deliberately intended to mislead—might help to stop future problems.
The time is long overdue for a detailed inquiry into the registration of political names and parties in order to prevent deliberate abuse of the democratic processes. I have deliberately tried to raise the matter in a non-partisan way and I hope that hon. Members from the other parties will agree that democracy is important enough for all of us to defend, especially when an attempt is made to subvert that democracy in your constituency, Madam Speaker, and in many other constituencies throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for initiating the debate, and I am privileged to have an opportunity to make a brief contribution.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue in a notably non-partisan way, and that is entirely as it should be. All parties and, more important, the electors stand to lose when episodes of the sort he described occur, whether wholesale or on a limited scale in individual constituencies.
One of the most notorious examples affecting my party and those who sought to support it during the most recent elections to the European Parliament was the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). He lost his seat because of a deliberate attempt by another candidate to deceive the electors by using the title "Literal Democrat". Efforts to gain redress through the existing procedures of the Representation of the People Act were wholly unsuccessful.
Following that incident, and throughout the previous Parliament, all-party discussions with the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), endeavoured to produce a proposal. The Lord Chancellor of the day, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, was also involved in those discussions. However, we got nowhere, and I am not sure that that was because no perfectly satisfactory proposals were put forward. I had a strong sense that the discussions were not progressed with determination, deliberation or any recognition of the seriousness of the issue.
The debate gives rise to wider questions, and wider solutions might be canvassed on the conduct of elections. My right hon. and hon. Friends would favour the establishment of an independent electoral commission.


The regulation of elections is not a suitable matter to be handled by a Secretary of State and a Department. It is more appropriate that such matters should be handled by an independent body that is responsible to Parliament, as recommended by the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government as long ago as 1991, in its report on the conduct of elections.
The commission would bring together the expertise of Home Office officials, the personnel of the boundary commission and those responsible for local authority electoral administration. Such a commission could be responsible for electoral administration, boundary revisions, monitoring of election expenses and the allocation of broadcasting time for all elections and referendums. To my mind, none of those matters is adequately dealt with at present. This is a short debate and I would not wish to expatiate on those topics, but I wish them all to be properly monitored and openly discussed, and ultimately decided on by Parliament as a whole.
I wish to ask the Minister a question about an issue wider than that touched on by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East. Before the election, the Labour party, in its manifesto, expressed its intention to refer the issue of electoral funding, and especially the moneys that are made available to parties from sources other than the state, to the Nolan commission. I understood that to be Labour party policy before the election, but since then we have heard nothing about it.
I understand that the Nolan commission is appointed to sit until next spring; if it is to do that job, it should be charged with doing so quite soon. I hope that the Minister can tell us whether Nolan will be charged with that important question, for it is highly unsatisfactory that, at present, attempts are made effectively to buy parliamentary support.
There is a huge discrepancy between the amounts that political parties spend. Apparently, such expenditure does not always succeed in its objects. I suspect that, in the recent general election campaign, the amount spent by the Conservative party, which is widely rumoured to have been about £40 million—perhaps the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Dr. Mawhinney) can enlighten us—did not give value for money. However, I would not wish to enter into the merits of the ways in which the matter should be handled. That matter, including the extent of state funding for parliamentary elections, would be a proper issue for investigation by the Nolan commission, and all political parties might wish to give evidence on it.
The Liberal Democrats would support an element of state funding and some control limiting national expenditure on elections. As things stand, the rules are obviously being breached, not only nationally, but locally. Widespread telephone canvassing of constituencies is conducted from central locations to ensure the return of local candidates. Much that is done is difficult to track, but outside existing law. There is an urgent need to tackle that problem if the issue of expenditure on conduct of elections is not further to bring the process into disrepute.
Electoral registration has been mentioned on previous occasions by Labour Members. The present system is highly unsatisfactory. There are very substantial

inaccuracies in the electoral registers. In 1991, the Hansard Society estimated that electoral registers were 16 per cent. inaccurate by the time that they expired. Not only are there inaccuracies in the registers as compiled, but some names are missing.
Treasury figures show that, in 1996, 14.7 per cent. of the population was missing from registers; in 1983, the figure was 2.3 per cent. Between 1986 and 1994, the percentage of the population on the registers fell from a bad 81.6 per cent. to an appalling 75.9 per cent., and nearly a quarter of those who should have been able to vote for the first time at the recent general election were not registered to do so.

Mr. Harry Barnes: It would be interesting to conduct research to discover how many people were missing from the registers at the recent general election, and the extent of the inaccuracies that developed between mid-February, when the new registers started to operate, and the election date. Already, by 1 May, many people had moved and people had died. A host of problems had entered the registers in that short time. It would be interesting to have that information in addition to the Hansard Society information—the 16 per cent. figure—which is about 10 years old.

Mr. Maclennan: I agree, and I hope that in this short debate the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of developing the point. Obviously, we should have an accurate rolling register. That would be a suitable matter for the electoral commission that I recommended to embark on as soon as possible. It would help if we had the Government's acceptance of the principle of a rolling register in the life of this Parliament—even if, understandably, they were not able to say now how they proposed to bring that about.
Liberal Democrats also attach importance to the constitutional matter of the triggering of elections. The power of the Crown—or the power that is exercised in the name of the Crown, by royal prerogative—to call elections is inappropriate and highly anomalous in a modern democracy. It is time seriously to contemplate fixed-term Parliaments. We advocate fixed-term Parliaments of four years. We think it inappropriate that, in the political race, one competitor should fire the starting gun of an election, and we advocate that, as part of the agenda for reform, the new Government should seriously consider that proposal.
In our view, the issue of misleading descriptions on nomination papers, on which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East—who spoke so eloquently—focused, is a matter of urgent importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), with whose position we all sympathise at this time and who is unable to be in the Chamber now because of the pressures of his situation and a current court case, faced a candidate described as the "Liberal Democrat Top choice for Parliament". No doubt that description was designed to deceive, although I cannot say whether it had an effect on the outcome. It is unsatisfactory that such an element can be introduced into a debate, and it is important to emphasise that the sufferers are not only candidates but electors, who above all should be clear about their true choices.
One proposal to emerge from the all-party discussions was to enable reference to be made to a judge in chambers as soon as nominations were received, by any party who


considered that the description of a candidate was misleading. The case would be heard as a matter of priority. I remain of the view that that is a practical proposition. The Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department should have been able to come up with a more compelling response to the proposal.

Mr. Anthony Steen: At the last election in Totnes, a candidate stood as the "Local Conservative". He was both local and a paid-up member of the Conservative party. In other words, he was standing for what he was. Perhaps that poses a greater difficulty than a candidate's intentions. If someone intends to deceive, that is one thing; if his intention is to stand for what he is, that is surely quite another.

Mr. Maclennan: Parties must determine whether a candidate is entitled to present himself as an official candidate, and there ought to be some sign whether he enjoys that entitlement on the ballot paper. My proposed electoral commission should be able to deal with such matters—but we do not want to wait for a final solution. The problem is relatively straightforward.
It may be difficult to judge intentions to deceive, but I remind the House of what happened at Hillhead. My noble Friend Lord Jenkins stood as a candidate there, and someone styling himself Roy Jenkins appeared on the ballot paper ahead of my noble Friend's name. There can be little doubt that the whole exercise was designed to pull the wool over the electors' eyes. What is required is speedy recourse to the courts.
What really counts is the will of the Government. There are doubtless several ways in which the problem could be tackled.
Brief allusion has been made to the possibility of registration of parties. That will become of great importance in the context of the Scottish and Welsh Parliament and Assembly if they are established under legislation following the referendums. I hope that the arguments that will be deployed then will be seen to have equal force in respect of elections to this House and the European Parliament. Registration is almost certainly the longer-term solution, and it would be interesting to hear the Government's thinking on it. It would certainly represent a course of action that would command the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I support what the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has said. Like him, I had a bogus candidate standing against me who sought to deceive the electors by calling himself the "Loyal Conservative", as opposed to the official Conservative. Like the hon. Gentleman, too, I distinguish between two types of bogus candidate—those seeking to deplete the number of votes given to the official candidate and those seeking publicity.
The hon. Gentleman used the famous example of the Monster Raving Loony party. What he omitted to say was that, for the £500 deposit that they put up, those people get about £8,000—worth of free postage and an enormous amount of invaluable free publicity. If they happen to be in the entertainment business, putting on gigs, that will boost their audiences and put a great deal of money in their pockets.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I have thought it a good idea before now to bring this matter before the House. I followed with great interest the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who faced a "Loyal Labour" party candidate who took 2,500 of his votes. It was said in that debate that the candidate did not set foot outside his house but picked up all those votes by virtue of his description and position on the ballot paper.
That was some slight comfort to me, because the so-called Loyal Conservative in my constituency picked up 3,000-odd votes. He also chose the prime Conservative bits of the constituency and deluged them with propaganda—to the extent that people living there thought that I had done a runner and that the official candidate had changed. That was reflected in the number of spoilt ballot papers; people did not know whom to vote for, or whether I was dead or alive—

Mr. Snape: If the hon. Lady is trying to tell us that the bogus candidate out-publicised her, I can only say that he must be a remarkable character.

Mrs. Gorman: I shall take that as a compliment.
I see that the press are always here waiting to pounce on our peccadillos, which reminds me that there was a time in my colourful past when I stood as an independent candidate. In 1974, my platform was "Less government, less taxes and more choice". Like most of my colleagues, therefore, I like to claim that I was a forerunner of the Thatcher revolution.
I have been to discuss this matter with the Minister concerned—whom I thank for his courtesy—the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). He was extremely accommodating and sympathetic, and assured me that the Government take the matter seriously and are contemplating legislation that may deal with it. I compliment the Government on that. Bogus candidates seem to multiply at national and local elections.
The £50 deposit was introduced in 1918 under the Representation of the People Act. Incidentally, that Act also enfranchised women. I offer that by way of a nice little reminder of the not-too-distant past. The deposit was introduced because bogus candidates were reaching saturation point. As the deposit becomes less significant financially, so the number of candidates will always increase. Some people may think £500 a lot of money these days, but it is peanuts compared with £50 in 1918—that was a very great deal of money then. Even into the 1980s, as many as 17 candidates, most of them bogus, stood in constituencies such as Bermondesy and Chesterfield. Although each one may pick up only a few hundred votes, together they add up to a great many.
Another problem that we face is the difficulty of actually confronting bogus candidates. As the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said, his challenger did not set foot outside his front door, and there was no reason to believe that anyone was canvassing in the area. So there needs to be a time lag between the handing in of nomination papers and final registration. There must be enough time to let people to get to court—a process which itself is fraught with difficulties.
The obvious parallel is the register of company names and trademarks. If the official names or titles, "Conservative" or "Labour", supplemented by "Tory" or "Socialist"—

Mr. Snape: Steady on.

Mrs. Gorman: That used to be the Government's policy, but I am no longer sure. They seem to have become pseudo-Conservatives, so perhaps they should register that as well.
A registered company can challenge people who use its name. A classic case is that of Harrods, which often finds that stores, little cafés or even boot sales open up and call themselves Harrods. The company then goes to court and has that stopped.
I congratulate the Government on taking this matter seriously, and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East on bringing it to the attention of the House. I trust that legislation will be introduced speedily, because local councils experience exactly the same problem with candidates. Where money is no object or the deposit is low—in the case of local councils there may be no deposit—there is no real deterrent to nutters and spoilers seeking to subvert the course of justice.

Mr. Steen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is not bogus candidates but genuine candidates masquerading under a bogus title? The problem is not that they should not stand—that is their democratic right—but how they describe themselves. I foresee a tremendously big court case every time one challenges such people as to whether they are describing themselves correctly.

Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. In his case, someone described himself as a Conservative and considered himself to be local, so that was difficult.
I have yet to learn of any legislation that solved every aspect of every problem. Nevertheless, by and large there are two options: either the deposit is pushed up to the point where people are deterred—that would be difficult because the amount of free publicity and postage is enormous, with £8,000 postage allowance in an average-sized constituency—or we devise a system like that which exists in the commercial world to protect a company's official name. We could then protect the official and, to all intents and purposes, real names of the official parties standing at elections.

Dr. Tony Wright: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, initiated so interestingly and eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). I come simply to tell a story and then make a proposal.
The story is of someone who was challenged by a candidate describing himself as "New Labour" at the general election. It is arguable whether someone describing himself as a "Loyal Conservative" and standing against the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was seeking to mislead the electorate or to contribute to the democratic process, but in my case, to have a candidate standing as

"New Labour" against me is a deep affront. As in the case of the hon. Lady, I had no time to do anything about it. When the gentleman in question stood some four or five elections ago, he managed to secure 19 votes; having decided to describe himself as "New Labour", he managed to secure 1,615 votes and an outcome that produced 573 spoilt ballot papers.
The candidate enjoyed the fact that his name was Mr. Hurley. We realised afterwards that we had foolishly spent most of the election morning saying over the loud speaker, "Vote Labour. Vote early", which did not help our cause a great deal. Once we discovered what had happened, we took out newspaper advertisements to tell people that there was only one real article and that they should not be confused by substitutes. The candidate availed himself of free post at great public expense, much to the distress of postmen and postwomen who had to deliver bogus material to the electorate.
As ever, my name, suffering from the W factor, appeared at the bottom of the ballot paper, while he and other candidates were way up there. It turned out that we were taking people to vote who had voted for him and not for me. One old lady whom we had taken to vote memorably came out saying, "These 'New Labour' candidates are very good. I am glad that we are going to get them in." In a constituency that has been substantially reorganised as a result of boundary changes, I am known less well in some parts than in others, so that is an additional factor.
That entirely bogus candidate deliberately sought to mislead the electorate and put out material through the free post proclaiming his support for Tony Blair and new Labour and seeking to capitalise on the way the wind was blowing. I see the temptation of doing that. I could understand if Conservative candidates at the last election would also have liked to describe themselves as "New Labour".
When we came to the count, that gentleman, whom I had never met up to that point, told me absurdly that the returning officer had invited him to describe himself as "New Labour"—a ludicrous suggestion. When he made his little speech after the announcement of the result, he declared his undying support for me in particular and for the Labour party in general. On all the evidence, it was a deliberate attempt to mislead the electorate. As it happens, it did not matter, given that I was part of a landslide. However, the number of votes that he got was the size of my majority last time, so this is extremely serious.
Although the political system should not be monopolised by the existing players—we must have ease of entry for new people, whether they are quirky, eccentric independents or genuine new parties wanting to break in—we must get the balance right so that we do not allow deliberate misrepresentation to take place. My credentials on diversity are proved by the fact that, after the general election, our victory party and disco were held for us by the Monster Raving Loony Custard candidate, who is an expert on such matters.
This is not the time to rehearse the solutions to the problem. Some have been suggested, but there is not just one way to proceed. The matter must be approached seriously. We should regard the problem in the context of a range of other problems relating to the running of elections. We have paid some attention to the problem on and off over the years but have never seriously grasped


it. The Labour party had the Plant committee, which reported in 1993 and is known for what it said about electoral reforms. It is less well known for what it said about the conduct of elections, but it made a raft of reform proposals.
In the last Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who has gone to graze in pastures new, introduced the Parliamentary Elections Bill incorporating some 30 recommendations arising from the Plant committee deliberations. It also picked up suggestions from the Hansard Society report some years earlier. I shall not go through the range of proposals, but they included voter registration, emergency voting, ensuring that disabled people have access to voting stations, the day on which votes take place, counting procedures, expenses, and a range of issues to do with the conduct of elections, which are currently deficient and need to be corrected.
As a party and as a Government, we are about to embark on a process of sustained political reform. Many of us celebrate that. As part of that process, one of the proposals that has emerged over the years and gained much force recently is for an electoral commission. I invite the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) to comment on that when he replies.
We must be serious about how we conduct elections. The present system is full of deficiencies and in some ways is a disgrace. I want to hear the Government say that they have plans to introduce proposals to set up an electoral commission, and that the commission will examine the issue of misleading candidates as part of its more general remit to make sure that the conduct of elections from now on meets with general democratic approval.

Mr. John Maxton: This is the first time that I have spoken since you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been in the Chair. I take the opportunity of welcoming a fellow Glasgow Member of Parliament to the Speaker's Chair—the first since Sir Myer Galpern was there. It is a great honour for the city that you have been appointed to the position.
I do not intend following the route of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and other hon. Members by discussing the lesser candidates in elections. It is an important issue and has been well aired, but other aspects of the conduct of elections need to be raised.
If I had any objection to other candidates, it was to those who called themselves pro-life candidates—not because I object to candidates putting forward pro-life views, but because the title "pro-life" implies that every other candidate is anti-life, which is a very unfair description.
I shall speak about the way in which elections are conducted, including the registration of electors. I do not know the position elsewhere, but in Glasgow at the last election there were grave concerns about the allocation of schools as polling stations, and other polling stations. Major changes were made.
In my constituency, residents of two high-rise blocks of flats—largely old-age pensioners—who in previous elections had voted at the local primary school 100 yards

from their homes, suddenly found themselves transferred to a polling station a mile and a half away. That caused us considerable difficulties, but it caused them even greater difficulty. The greatest problem was caused to those voting for other parties, which had not laid on any means of getting them to the polls.
I am concerned also about the way in which the count was conducted in Glasgow. Again, I do not know the position elsewhere. In Glasgow, it was extremely slow and took far too long. All the counts for all the Glasgow seats had to be completed before any of the results were announced, which meant that it was 3.30 am before we could leave the hall where counting took place.
My main purpose in speaking, however, is to look to the future. Although I welcome the proposal for an electoral commission, one or two things must be done before such a commission is appointed. We are now in the electronic age, but we are not yet making full use of computers in the way in which we organise elections.
First, although the register is held in electronic form, the political parties generally get it in printed form. In some areas, one can get the electoral register on disc, but there is no statutory obligation for it to be provided in electronic form, or in an electronic form that can be easily read by the computers that most people have—the standard Windows 95 or other such formats.
Now that the register is in electronic form, it should be a rolling register. There is no reason why it should not be as up to date as possible when the election takes place. Anyone who can prove that he is living at a particular address should be included on the register at any point up to the calling of the election, if not right up to election day.
We must start cross-referencing the electoral register. We know when people are born, so we know when they reach the age of 18. If they do not appear on the electoral register then, there should be some check to find out what has happened to them in the meantime. We know that they go through the school system. Those records are increasingly held on computer by the same local authority that maintains the electoral register. I appreciate the potential dangers in terms of civil liberties, and we would have to be wary, but the task is not impossible.
My second and most important point is that, at the next general election, we should be voting electronically. People should go to the polling booth, receive a ballot paper, mark a cross on it by the candidate's name and, instead of putting the paper into the ballot box, should put it into a machine similar to that used for the national lottery. The vote will be recorded automatically and at 10 pm when the polling stations close, we will know at the press of a button the result of the election. The papers can still be placed in a ballot box after the vote has been recorded, so that a check can be carried out.
Electronic voting would save time, effort and in many cases the heartache of standing around in cold, dreary halls while people flip through papers and, especially when the result is close, repeat the count again and again. It is no longer necessary to do things in that way.
Initially, electronic voting will be conducted in much the same way as voting at present. People will go to the polling station, have their names checked off by a clerk and mark their ballot paper. I hope that all the polling stations in a constituency can be linked electronically and that the clerks can operate using a computer screen, so


that any voter in that constituency can vote at any polling station in the constituency, not necessarily at one to which he has been allocated, and his name will be recorded as having voted. There is a possible problem of fraud, but there is no reason why it should be any greater than at present, and fraud is not a major problem in Britain, as far as we know.
Electronic voting would make it easier to vote and simpler to obtain the result. Some people will still want a formal ceremony at which the results are announced. There is no reason why all the candidates should not assemble at 10.30 pm to hear the returning officer announce the results. Television cameras could still be present, and candidates could still make speeches. In the age of modern computer systems, it is absurd that we should have to wait for hour after hour while the votes are counted.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to consider the matter because action is needed now. We cannot wait until an electoral commission is established. If the commission is to consider electronic voting, it will want to conduct trials in limited areas. There is no reason why, even in the referendum in Scotland, the system could not be tried out in four or five polling stations to see whether it is feasible. It should certainly be tried at the next local elections and the next European elections, possibly in a full-scale trial. By the time of the next general election, an electronic voting system should be up and running. It will develop, so that it becomes faster and easier for future elections. I hope that the Government will examine the system and introduce it by the next general election.

Mr. James Clappison: The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) addressed the important issue of candidates' descriptions eloquently and in a very entertaining manner. Several other hon. Members underlined the importance of that issue, including my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) who made a powerful contribution.
We acknowledge that there are serious issues to be addressed in respect of candidates' descriptions, and my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has met the Home Secretary to reflect on that matter. We shall consider it further—and in a non-partisan way—in the future.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) on securing this important debate. I join the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) —whom I welcome to his new position—in complimenting my hon. Friend on his speech and on the interesting way in which he described an important and difficult issue. Other hon. Members have also raised some concerns. I know that Madam Speaker will have listened to the beginning of the debate with great care and attention. As we have heard, she was involved in an incident during the election campaign.
I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker and all hon. Members who have contributed or listened to the debate that the Government take such matters very

seriously and that we are actively examining ways of tackling them. I shall report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on several issues that have been raised during the debate—including the interesting suggestions on ways in which votes might be registered, which deserve serious consideration.
On 1 May, more than 30 million people cast their votes in the general election. No other event involves the direct participation of so many people. Therefore, it is appropriate that we should take time to consider whether our elections are conducted effectively and efficiently. It is important to ensure that the electoral process does not allow people's wishes to be distorted.
I shall deal first with the issue on which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East concentrated: misleading descriptions on candidate nomination forms and ballot papers. This is not the first time that the issue has been raised in the House since the election. In an Adjournment debate on 21 May, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) described the problems that he had encountered in his constituency. I know that a significant number of other hon. Members have experienced various difficulties in that regard. For example, in the 1994 European elections, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) was opposed by a candidate calling himself a "Literal Democrat". The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) outlined the difficulties that she has faced, and I hope to return to those matters in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East referred to incidents that had occurred in council elections. He drew attention to the Bracknell council election, the outcome of which he alleged was affected materially. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) referred to a little old lady who was deceived when casting her vote. That is an unacceptable situation, and we shall address that problem seriously.

Mr. Alan Hurst: Until the late 1960s, party political descriptions did not appear on ballot papers. A candidate was described as a "farm labourer", "gentleman" or "gentleman retired". We could avoid attracting fringe candidates who do not have proper support, not by increasing the deposit, as the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) suggested, but by increasing the number of people who are required to nominate a candidate for election. The current figure is 10 nominees per candidate in parliamentary elections, but only two nominees are required in some council elections. There may be a case for increasing the figure to 1 per cent. of eligible voters, which would deter those candidates who do not have sufficient support but not those candidates with genuine conviction.

Mr. O'Brien: I suspect that that condition might also deter the eccentric candidates, whom we have agreed we would not wish to dissuade from standing in elections. Screaming Lord Sutch has become almost an institution in the British electoral system, and I do not think that any hon. Member would seek to dissuade him from putting his name forward. There are certain difficulties associated with increasing substantially the number of nominees required. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend also advocates removing candidates' descriptions from ballot papers. Those descriptions—so long as they are not misleading—often assist the voter.
Candidates who seek to confuse the voters deliberately and to garner votes that should properly go to another candidate are a menace. They threaten to undermine the democratic process, and the Government are determined to deal with them. The hon. Member for Billericay was opposed by a candidate who called himself a "Loyal Conservative". She and the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) referred to candidates who mislead the voters but who believe that their titles honestly reflect their politics. My initial reaction is that what is important is not the candidate's intention but the effect on the voter. Elections are about giving voters a choice—not about allowing candidates to use their preferred titles. We must consider whether the voters are likely to be deceived, even if that is not the candidate's intention.
Before outlining possible solutions to those problems, it might be helpful if I provide some background information. Descriptions on ballot and nomination papers were introduced in 1969 to address the problem of misdirection or attempted misdirection of the electorate. They have clearly not been as effective as we might have wished. The returns from the general election have still to be compiled, but I fear that the use of potentially misleading party names on ballot papers has increased from 1992. Fortunately, that spoiling tactic does not seem to have affected the election outcome in any constituency—my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East described how it affected a council election—but that does not detract from the seriousness of the problem. As a result of a deliberate deception, some people may have been misled and ended up voting in a way that they did not intend.
The provision that allows every candidate to include a description on his or her nomination paper is set out in the parliamentary election rules in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: The rules regarding nomination papers are explicit. However, those rules are often not applied when people fill in nomination papers, which may be signed without completing the details at the top. A simple solution to that problem, which does not require primary legislation, would be to have nomination papers signed in the presence of a justice of the peace in the same way as expenses are signed off after an election. That provision would apply only to parliamentary, and not local, elections.
The Minister might like to consider another solution that would not require primary legislation. At the close of nominations, the returning officer could draw a letter from a bag containing 26 letters of the alphabet, which would start the alphabet for the purposes of the ballot paper. That would prevent a pre-emptive spoiler from using his or her surname against a candidate whose surname began with the letter W, for example—or S in my case.

Mr. O'Brien: Both ideas are interesting and deserve consideration in the review that will obviously take place after the 1997 general election. In conjunction with other parties, we shall be considering what changes might need to be made. No doubt the hon. Gentleman's propositions can be fed into that process of full and proper review and consideration of the issues.
I return to nomination papers. No candidate is required to provide a description as such on the nomination paper. Where he or she does so, however, the description set out

on the paper is automatically transferred, in the same terms, to the ballot paper. The description may not be obscene or racist or act as an incitement to crime. Beyond that, the rules provide only that the description must not exceed six words and must be sufficient, with the candidate's other particulars, to identify him or her.
I should now explain the responsibilities of acting returning officers. They have responsibility for the conduct of parliamentary elections in each constituency, but they do not have power to amend a candidate's nomination paper, and may reject a nomination only in very restricted circumstances: the circumstances are if the candidate is disqualified because he or she is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment or if the nomination paper is not as required by law and the paper is not subscribed in the due form.
The effect of the second part of the rules is that the acting returning officer can rule only on the validity of the nomination paper, not on the validity of the person's nomination. The reason for limiting the returning officer's authority is clear. Successive Governments have taken it as a first priority that acting returning officers should not be drawn into making decisions that might be considered political, or party political. The officers themselves do not want to be drawn into the political arena. In principle, I think we would all agree that that is right.
I listened with interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East said about information about spoiler candidates not being available. I cannot explain why the returning officer in Sandwell took the view that he did. I shall certainly draw the matter to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who usually deals with these matters in the Home Office. I am sure that the appropriate inquiries will be made.
Some possible solutions have been suggested, including some this morning, as to how we might approach these issues. Over the past couple of years, Home Office officials have had meetings with officials from the political parties to examine options for dealing with the use of misleading descriptions.
I shall consider the various other options before moving to that of registering political parties, which was raised by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). One of the other options would be to increase the level of the deposit. The value of the deposit has fallen against other financial comparators, both since it was first introduced in 1918 and since it was revised in 1985. The evidence suggests, however, that an increase in the level of the deposit would not influence those individuals who deliberately set out to use misleading descriptions as spoilers. It would, however, seriously reduce the opportunity for fringe but genuine parties, such as the Green party, and those people who wish to stand independently of any party, to put up candidates in a general election.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East and others have said that there is no wish to discourage fringe candidates. We seek only to ensure that, when names are on the ballot, everyone who is voting recognises what they are and is not deceived into thinking that they are something that they are not.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East suggested increasing the number of people who nominate. I am not sure that there is any evidence that that would


act as a deterrent, other than to deter fringe candidates. In practice, spoiler candidates are likely to be able, if they have a misdescription on the nomination form, to garner higher numbers of attested signatures than the present requirement. Obviously, if we increased the number substantially, the difficulties for such candidates would increase. The price of doing that would be to deter the fringe parties. We are reluctant to do that.

Mrs. Gorman: Is the Minister aware that, in the United States, a candidate must secure several hundred names on the paper before he or she can stand? That does not seem to deter candidates or adversely affect the US electoral system.

Mr. O'Brien: I am not fully briefed on all the United States election practices. My recollection, however, of when I have been in the US at election time is that the rules are somewhat different in different states. There are, of course, particular rules for the presidential elections. There are various different types of ballot, including ballots for the primary elections. Different numbers of votes have to be achieved in different parties and in different states. There is a mixed system.
Although extremely rich individuals such as Ross Perot have managed to fund the raising of the number of nominations required, other fringe candidates seem to some extent to be deterred. I accept that there are some fringe parties and that all sorts of parties put up, but not to the same extent as in the UK. Increasing numbers is something to be considered, but I am not convinced at this stage that that is the way forward.

Mr. Martin Salter: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is nonsense that only 10 signatures are required on a ballot paper when someone is seeking to represent 70,000 people within a parliamentary constituency, whereas the same number of signatures is required to represent 2,000 people at parish council level? Surely the purpose of signatures is to demonstrate an acceptable level of community support.

Mr. O'Brien: The objective is to ensure that there are some people at least who want to nominate an individual. What should be regarded as a proper level of community support is a matter for debate. I suspect that each Member of this place is likely to have his or her own view on what that level of support should be. It is an issue to consider, but at this point I am not persuaded that merely increasing the number of attestors would remedy the mischief that we are seeking to address.
Another option is to introduce scope for nominations to be challenged in different ways. The approach is superficially attractive, but it would almost certainly

require an increase in the statutory election timetable that determines the period between the issue of the writ and polling day. The advice of the Court Service, which would need to service any challenges, is that a period of at least five days might be required. The period would be greater if an appeal procedure were to be included, or if a judge determined that additional time should be allowed for the preparation of a defence or to introduce disputed evidence. A consequence of a flexible timetable could be that polls in some constituencies at a general election might not be held on the agreed polling day. That is something that we would, I think, view with concern.
Registering the names of political parties as types of trademark is another possibility. I understand that some of the major parties have already obtained trademark registration. The difficulty with this approach is that the Trade Marks Act 1994 provides protection only in the course of trade, and we are advised that political activity does not fall within the definition of an activity in the course of trade. Similar constraints limit the ability of passing off proposals and providing for parties to become companies guaranteed by law.
If we are to change current legislation, we might as well tackle the issue itself rather than try to mess about with trademark law or something else. Let us address the issue itself.
None of these options seems especially attractive or effective. That has led the Government to conclude, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East, said when responding to the debate on the issue last month, that the answer probably lies in a system of registration of political parties, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said.
The principal problem with the use of party names as candidate descriptions is that the political parties are not recognised in electoral law. That means that there is no procedure by which a political party can register its name for electoral purposes, or prevent anyone from using its name, or a similar name, to confuse the electorate. A system of registration could help to overcome that by giving statutory recognition to political party names. It might then be possible to prevent attempts to pass off a person as a candidate of a recognised political party by using a description intended to deceive.
The Government are considering how best to take the issue of party registration forward. There are various difficulties and problems that we need to address. In discussion with other parties, we want to work on procedures to deal with the important issues that have been raised in the debate. We intend to deal with them, and we hope that we will be able in due course to proceed with a system of registration.

Pre-school Education

11 am

Mr. David Lidington: I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce a short debate on a subject that is of great importance. I should at the start declare an interest, in that earlier this week my wife received an application form for a certificate of eligibility, so I have a significant family interest in this area of policy.
In recent weeks, the Government have introduced important changes to pre-school education policy. As they were achieved through administrative action rather than through additional legislation, I was glad that Madam Speaker felt able to agree to my request to debate the subject on the Floor of the House.
There will be a fair measure of common ground across the Chamber on objectives, especially on the desirability of expanding provision for pre-school education. There will also be disagreement about the best means of attaining those objectives. I want to put on record my regret at the Government's decision to press ahead with the abolition of the voucher scheme. I believe that the system of vouchers placed power in the hands of parents in individual families. My fear is that the system proposed by the Government will take power away from those parents and put it in the hands of local education authorities, which may or may not be responsive to the demands of parents living in their areas or to the different opportunities for pre-school education provided by the voluntary and private sectors.
I welcome the Government's stated commitment to the expansion of nursery education, and their recognition of the need for partnership between the agencies of local and central Government and the private and voluntary providers. I also welcome the fact that the new Government have decided to adopt Conservative policies on the inspection of pre-school institutions and on the notion of desirable learning outcomes. My concerns are about both the long term and the immediate future of pre-school education. In the time available, I should like to explore the legal basis of local education authority responsibilities, funding, admissions policy and the relationship between local education authorities and voluntary and private sector providers.
I shall first deal with the Government's statement of principles for the longer-term development of pre-school education: the longer term refers to 1998–99 onwards, so it starts in a relatively short time. In the Government's recent letter to chief education officers, their stated objective is that, by April 1999, every LEA should be able to offer a good-quality pre-school place to all parents who want it, and for that place to be available free of charge.
The first problem on which I want to probe the Government is the legal basis on which local education authorities will make such provision. LEAs do not currently have a statutory duty to provide pre-school education. Is it the Government's intention to amend the law in the education Bill that they have promised for later this Session? If so, are they of the view that LEAs should have a duty to provide pre-school education, or do they prefer a formula, such as a duty to secure provision? It is more than merely a matter of semantics, because it takes us into the realm of the partnership between the different

providers and the extent of the power given to LEAs to pick and choose between providers in the private and voluntary sectors.
As I understand it, under the Government's proposals, the only private or voluntary institutions that will secure funding from the state for pre-school education will be those that have been approved by a local education authority, and which have been included on the LEA's list and published as part of its plan. What guarantees does the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), think the Government will be able to extract from local education authorities that they will always act fairly?
The statement of principle is in the Government's circular to chief education officers, and the desire for partnership is expressed, but there is no mention of detailed criteria against which the judgment of LEAs could be reviewed, or of sanctions that might be available against a local education authority that had acted arbitrarily and unfairly. It is not just a matter of political speculation: there have been concrete examples in recent years of LEAs, for doctrinaire reasons, pursuing what can be described only as a vendetta against particular voluntary or private institutions.
A case that ended up in court has been brought to my attention. Liverpool city council sought to reduce the number of children able to be admitted to the Monkton nursery on the ground that the school was in breach not of the statutory but of the recommended space standards published by the Department of Health. That decision was taken despite the school's proven track record and in defiance of the Department's own guidelines, which state:
Where a facility has been running for a number of years and offering an acceptable standard of care to the children with which parents are satisfied, a local authority should not consider closing it down or reducing the number of places just because it falls below the recommended space standard.
That incident caused the school a great deal of hassle and upset and distress to staff and parents. The High Court case left the Labour council in Liverpool with a bill of about £120,000 in lawyers' fees, which probably would have been sufficient to build a brand new nursery in the city. It was a waste of public money to pursue narrow, dogmatic, political interests. I hope that when the Government consider in more detail their guidance to local education authorities and the wording of any legislation that they plan on this subject, they will examine carefully how to ensure that LEAs act fairly towards their partner institutions.

Mr. David Tredinnick: This is an important matter. Does not my hon. Friend think it strange that, apart from the Minister, the Government Benches are deserted? Does not that send signals to the country about Labour's general attitude to this important matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech, not an intervention.

Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a sound point, although I note that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) is sitting on the Government Front Bench. He has long taken an interest in education, and has strong views on it—which, no doubt, is why he has been silenced by being sent to the Whips Office.
My second point about the relationship between local education authorities and the private and voluntary sector concerns the proposal in the Government's circular that LEAs should have discretion to spend less than £366 per child per term when it comes to reimbursing private or voluntary providers for the costs that they have incurred in educating children. I am not sure what the justification for that is—especially given that, when the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill was going through the House, the Labour party criticised the then Government heavily on the basis of a fear that we might be prepared to allow less than £1,100 a year to be paid to voluntary pre-school and other such organisations when their usual fees were less than the value of the vouchers. That seems rather a quick U-turn, even for the Labour party under its present leadership.
Have the Government thought about the criteria that LEAs would have to consider when judging whether a cut in the reimbursement to a private or voluntary provider was justified? Could an LEA make an arbitrary decision, or could it be placed under an obligation not merely to direct the money to other such providers—I think that that is in the circular—but to use it specifically to provide training for pre-school leaders and others to bring their talents up to the standard that the Government expect, or, indeed, to put it towards capital investment to provide additional places? I should like to hear more detail about that from the Minister.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am listening with interest to what my hon. Friend is saying, but I must criticise him on one ground. He has not specified what we did in the previous Parliament, when we were in government. It is important to put on record the benefits that the Conservative Government managed to achieve for people through the pre-school voucher scheme, and it would be remiss of my hon. Friend to ignore those achievements.

Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend is right. The Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996 set in train a considerable expansion in nursery and pre-school provision, in a way that was responsive to the individual needs of parents rather than the administrative and financial convenience of local authorities. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend must accept the reality that the present Government have chosen a different course. It is incumbent on us as an Opposition not only to do as my hon. Friend suggests, and remind the House of what we achieved when we were in office, but to probe the details of the proposals that the Government are presenting to the House and the country.
My next point concerns admissions and planning for pre-school provision. Under the arrangements proposed by the Government, local education authorities would be responsible for the provision of pre-school places, but would not control admissions in every maintained school within their boundaries. An LEA would not, for example, be able to insist on the provision of a given number of nursery places at a Church voluntary-aided school, although one assumes that most primary schools would want to attract the funds and provide the places.
Do the Government plan to give local authorities greater powers in law to control admissions? Is there a risk that an LEA would have power to impose an artificial

limit on admissions to a popular nursery school or class in order to maintain the number of children attending an unpopular one? I hoped that we had escaped from that when the Conservative Government introduced open enrolment in the 1980s, and I now hope that we shall not return to such a policy.

Mr. Tredinnick: Has not the Conservative policy of open enrolment proved extremely popular, and will not any move that threatens it be viewed with disdain by many parents? Choice has become an important element in education, and many parents expect it. I hope that my hon. Friend will develop that argument.

Mr. Lidington: I agree. No doubt my hon. Friend will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that he can make his points in more detail.
There is a particular problem in regard to out-of-area provision. Perhaps it is most obvious in places such as inner London, which contains a large number of LEAs that are close to each other, but it also exists in counties such as mine. Buckinghamshire is long and thin, and its arterial routes tend to run east-west across the county rather than north-south between the major towns. Many parents choose to take their children to a pre-school institution just across the county or borough boundary.
Having studied the Government's circular, I am not sure how they propose to deal with the problem. The circular seems to suggest that an LEA should consider adding to its list providers in neighbouring local authority areas that have taught pupils from that LEA, but I wonder whether that recommendation is enough. There still seems to be a risk that an LEA might, for its own financial reasons, try to restrict parental choice, and insist on including on its list only the institutions that fall within its boundaries.
That would be regrettable. Many mothers, for instance, might want to use a nursery near their workplace—which might be across a local authority boundary—rather than a nursery close to home but remote from work. A number of women with pre-school children work at Stoke Mandeville hospital in my constituency. It clearly makes sense for them to take their children to a nursery on site, rather than taking them somewhere else, going to work and then collecting them later after another car journey.
In their circular, the Government say that qualified teachers
should be involved in all settings providing early years education".
I think that the Under-Secretary spoke about that when the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill was in Committee, and I hope that she will be able to explain what the Government mean by "involved" in this context. Are they suggesting that a qualified teacher should have to be present in every classroom where pre-school children are being taught? If that is the case, it would clearly present a problem for private and local authority day nurseries, for pre-school classes and for nursery classes in independent schools, which at present are not required to have a qualified teacher in the classroom all the time. I hope that the Government do not intend to try to squeeze those organisations out of existence.

Mr. Phil Willis: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's point about quality.


Is it more important to have qualified teachers teaching pre-school children than to have places made available? I should like the hon. Gentleman to address that quality issue.

Mr. Lidington: The key point is how we assess and monitor quality. Quality is not always ensured simply by having in the classroom someone who is seen as a qualified teacher. I do not wish to see places provided by means of a hypothetical conveyor belt, regardless of quality. The previous Government had it right, because we said that we would assess and inspect the quality of the education provided by the institutions and would base our judgment on that. Extra, inflexible rules about having a qualified teacher on the premises are unnecessary if that central principle, enforced through regular and professional inspections, is adhered to.
Many adults who may be doing a good job in pre-schools may want qualified teacher status but, because of family or other commitments, they cannot take the time to engage in a course. Perhaps some of them have followed other courses, which do not entitle them to qualified teacher status. However, they are doing a good job and it is for inspectors to decide whether the quality of an institution is up to scratch.

Mr. Willis: Would you say that it is essential for an A-level history student to have a qualified teacher, but that it is not necessary—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Under the procedure in the House, when an hon. Member uses the word "you", he is referring to the Chair.

Mr. Lidington: Qualified teacher status does not necessarily guarantee high-quality education. In independent schools in particular, many teachers who have not gone through teacher training courses teach well. I should prefer to leave such judgments to the heads and governors, subject always to regular and rigorous inspection to ensure quality.
My next point to the Minister relates to the Government's policy on child:staff ratios. In Committee on 13 February 1996 on the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, Labour Members, including the Minister, voted for an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), which would have provided a statutory maximum ratio of one member of staff to 13 children. Is that the Government's policy, or have they changed their views on ratios?
The single biggest concern that I have picked up from local authorities about the Government's longer-term ambitions relates to the funding of the scheme. We know neither the amount that the Government propose to spend nor the mechanism that they propose for the distribution of the money. When Labour was in opposition, it criticised the Conservative Administration for not spending enough and alleged that the £1,100 voucher would be insufficient to cover the costs of a pre-school place.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, who was then a shadow spokesman on education and who has now been banished to the post of assistant valet, said on 22 January 1996 at column 104 of the Official Report that £1,100 was not enough. The Secretary of State for

Education and Employment, who was then the shadow spokesman on education, criticised the Conservative Government on their lack of provision for capital expenditure and on the lack of dedicated funds to train providers. That is recorded at column 44 of the Official Report on the same date. The Government's circular to chief education officers states that the cost of their proposals will be met "from existing funding".
We need to know more from the Government about whether they propose to divert money from elsewhere in the education budget to fund their proposed expansion, especially as they strongly argue that places should be provided free by April 1999 to every parent who wants such a place. I cannot see how that promise can be met, unless the Government are prepared to spend more on pre-school education, taking the money from other programmes, raising it by taxation or borrowing it as they think fit. Perhaps they are prepared to shoehorn pre-school children into extremely large classes, which would not provide the sort of education that we all want. As well as responding to that, I hope that the Minister will say whether the Government expect the money to be distributed to LEAs via the standard spending assessment or by some sort of specific grant.
I shall deal briefly with the Government's interim arrangements for 1997–98. I was somewhat amused to see that the certificates of eligibility are vouchers under another guise. It is hard to see how the Government's proposals will reduce administrative costs or bureaucracy, about which they criticised us so much. I have a couple of detailed points. I appreciate that LEAs do not have to have their plans ready until next week but, of course, they had to notify the Department by 16 June as to whether they intended to produce interim plans. How many LEAs have notified the Department that they intend to present an interim plan for 1997–98?
Secondly, there is the issue of the pupil-specific data, which the Government insist LEAs should provide. LEAs are being put under a duty to check individual parental claims for reimbursement, and the Department says that it will call for additional pupil-based data if it considers that necessary. That is considerably more cumbersome and bureaucratic than anything in the voucher scheme, which relied on checking providers. The Government's approach seems to expect LEAs to check individual families to make sure that they are not getting double subsidies, by having their children in a certificated or voucher-funded place one morning in a voluntary pre-school, and then putting them in LEA places in the second half of the week.
There is a particular problem in respect of cross-boundary places. I gather that the Data Protection Act 1988 stops the nursery administrative centre from giving a local education authority specific data about pupils being educated outside that LEA area. I wonder whether the Government have come up with a solution to that problem.
There is a shared commitment among hon. Members on both sides of the House to a further expansion of nursery education, building on the achievements of the previous Government. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), whom I am delighted to welcome to her new role on the Opposition Front Bench, will be forthright in seeking to develop


Conservative party thinking on that issue, as on other matters of education policy. The commitment is to providing not just places, but places of high quality.
Many question marks remain against the Government's proposals. They owe the House and the country a much more detailed account of their intentions than they have provided so far. In particular, I am looking for considerable reassurance that the consequence of their changes will not be simply to transfer power away from families and back to town halls.

Mr. Phil Willis: I thank the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for using this Adjournment debate to highlight the issue of the future of nursery education—or, as Liberal Democrats would prefer to call it, early-years education—and I apologise for wrongly addressing him before. 1 think that he would probably agree that it is one of the biggest issues facing the early part of this Parliament, and it is one on which the whole House could unite, provided that we get the right policies.
It is rewarding, if perhaps ironic, that, after 18 years of constant state education system reforms, the previous Government did not realise, until it was too late, the importance of early-years education. There was somehow a disbelief that, while examination performance was improving year by year, standards in numeracy and in literacy were falling and that a significant number of children were becoming alienated from the education system and indeed from society.
The previous Government did not seem to understand why that was so. The realisation that our education system needed not simply reform from the top downwards, but to be rebuilt from the bottom upwards, beginning with early-years education, sadly came too late. As a result, we have probably lost about 15 years of potential progress. Not only have many young people been disadvantaged, but the whole country is having to pay a price for that failure.
To be fair, 18 years ago, there was considerable scepticism about the value of early-years education or nursery education, but today there is almost universal acceptance of its value. The High/Scope research project by Schwinhart and Weikart in the United States of America demonstrated the significant cost benefits of early-years education. It meant less criminal damage and fewer court fees to pay, the payment of more taxes by better-educated citizens and the need for less remedial schooling, not to mention the enormous personal benefits in terms of the quality of life of the individuals concerned.
The dramatic conclusions of the evaluation of the 1992 key stage 1 national curriculum assessment project—the National Union of Teachers project—clearly demonstrate again the advantages, particularly to children from lower socio-economic groups, of having received good nursery or early-years education. Even the former Prime Minister was convinced that early-years education was important. At the Tory conference in 1994, he said:
There are many views about nursery education. But my views are clear. I am in favour of it".
To be fair, the nursery voucher scheme was probably this country's first attempt at a universal early-years education system. That needs to be recognised, yet,

despite the research findings, the scheme that is in place has done virtually nothing to meet the needs of the nation's three-year-olds and little to improve the service to our four-year-olds.
The system was universally condemned when it was announced. The then shadow Secretary of State called it "absolute nonsense" and a "convoluted administrative nightmare". The Liberal Democrat education spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), called it "a total con trick" and even the then Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, the former hon. Member for Crosby, Sir Malcolm Thornton, cast doubts, calling on the then Secretary of State to abandon the whole idea if the pilot scheme did not work.
The pilot scheme was a qualified failure, but, conveniently, it was expanded in time for the general election, with vouchers appearing on the electorate's doorsteps. The fact that the hon. Member for Aylesbury needed reminding of his Government's policy on the nursery voucher scheme is evidence that even he was slightly embarrassed by the whole process.
The scheme guaranteed not a nursery place to every child, but only the provision of a voucher to part-fund a place, should a place be available. For children in areas where there was little or no provision or where top-up fees were not available from parents, and for children in large rural areas such as the one that I represent, where children are sparsely located and where there was little existing provision, the voucher scheme delivered little. It remains what the present Secretary of State called it at the time—a bureaucratic nightmare—and it has caused tremendous stress to primary and infant schools, which have had to compete for voucher money to help to offset the costs of enlarged reception classes. In particular, it has disadvantaged schools that simply do not have room to provide for additional four-year-olds and that, inevitably, have lost children to other schools, so forcing unnecessary budget cuts and staff reductions.
Given the failure of the present scheme, the Government's commitment to replace it with an improved model and the overwhelming evidence that early-years education is a "price worth paying" to improve the quality of our education system, the whole House was entitled to expect a more considered response from the Government than the Secretary of State's letter to local education authorities on 22 May. Despite all the rhetoric and all the criticisms of the previous voucher scheme, what we have, in effect, is a new scheme that offers places to the same group of children, for the same number and length of sessions, and with the same budget—the same budget is exactly what the Secretary of State promised in his press release.
So what has changed? First, the paper transaction of the voucher has disappeared, and thank goodness for that. Secondly, there is now an expectation that a place will be provided for all four-year-olds and that is an important difference in the Government's proposals; there is not merely an entitlement to a voucher that people may or may not be able to spend, depending on where they live. Thirdly, I welcome the fact that provision will be organised through local education authorities. It was interesting to hear hon. Members talk about unfair treatment by LEAs of private institutions, when we remember how grossly unfairly LEAs have been treated in the past 18 years.
I do not want to be entirely negative about the Government's proposals. There is merit in the proposal to seek comprehensive development plans from LEAs for early-years education. Such a move would establish the principle of early-years education within the overall framework of state education. That is to be warmly welcomed. The Liberal Democrats will also actively support the Government's drive to ensure that all places are of good quality. We shall continue to support an active partnership between the maintained, the private and the voluntary sectors. Indeed, I compliment the previous Government on achieving that with their nursery voucher scheme, and it is pleasing that the Minister is prepared to take on board that partnership, to work and to improve on it.
Despite severe budget restraints and its large rural nature, my local education authority, North Yorkshire—a hung council in which the Conservatives have minority control—has unanimously supported a bid to submit an interim early-years development plan. However, it has real concerns, some of which I shall outline.
The first criterion outlined by the Secretary of State in his letter to LEAs is that he expects them to make 100 per cent. provision by 1999. We support that vision, but in reality few LEAs will be able to meet that target. Two weeks ago, one of the Minister's colleagues said on television that he expected places to be available for all four-year-olds in 1998, but that is simply not possible.
Where would LEAs find the accommodation for four-year-olds in the spring term of 1998? The children could be accommodated in nursery or pre-school classes, but North Yorkshire currently has provision for only 35 per cent. of the cohort. The LEA cannot rely on the private or voluntary sector, because its provision is patchy, due to the county's rural nature, and it cannot take up the slack. Moreover, the £366 per child per term fails to recognise the true cost of quality provision, and certainly does not leave scope to fund any capital or premises expansion, and it is doubtful whether that would be available for 1998 or even 1999.
The second issue is quality. I have referred to the tightness of funding to support expanded provision, but what do the Government mean by "a quality place"? Does the Secretary of State believe, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury obviously does, that £1,100 a year is sufficient to provide a quality place? I reject the view that adults working with children in their early years do not have to be qualified, which is the suggestion that has just been made. The most highly qualified and highly professional staff are needed to provide that quality education which is so essential to such children.
How does the Secretary of State intend local education authorities to monitor the quality of provision in order to create the registers? In addition to LEA nursery provision in North Yorkshire, there are 24 private nursery providers and 252 playgroups, all of which are currently registered. With no additional funding, how will it be possible to achieve what the Secretary of State so rightly wants—quality provision with quality monitoring throughout?
The third issue is, inevitably, funding. Even if we accept that £1,100 is sufficient for an early-years education place—the Liberal Democrats do not accept that—two specific problems arise. Currently, the Government do not have to pay for four-year-olds who do not take advantage of the voucher, but in future LEAs will have to provide those extra places because of the 100 per cent. criterion, and

they will have to guarantee that level of provision throughout the LEA. There will be a slight saving on the administration of vouchers but, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury pointed out, the new system will have an increased administrative burden anyhow, so whether there will be an overall saving is problematic.
Where will the extra money come from? In his press statement on 22 May, the Secretary of State made it clear that the £674 million available this year is all that will be available for next year. Yet, in a recent television interview, the Minister for Education and Employment said categorically that, by 1998, places would be available for all four-year-olds. Given the current position of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has said that there is to be no increase in spending and no virement from other budgets, from where will the money come? If the Government are expecting LEAs to find new resources despite their current funding difficulties, the first education provision battle will be entirely over the flagship of a new nursery or early-years education programme.
Will funding be universal, as with the current voucher system, and will the same principle of a per capita deduction in the under-fives standard spending assessment system apply? The Minister will know that under-fives SSAs vary considerably between LEAs. North Yorkshire has one of the lowest in the country. Unless there is a significant change to the principle and mechanism of the under-fives SSA, or a change to the universality of the value of each place, North Yorkshire will be significantly disadvantaged in its drive to create what the Secretary of State so rightly wants.
The Liberal Democrats accept the need for a quality system of early-years education for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want their children to participate. We firmly believe that a quality early-years education programme needs to recognise the essential difference between early-years education and primary education, particularly the work done in reception classes. If we are to have only extended reception classes to take in all four-year-olds, the new system will be as flawed as the current system.
During the general election campaign, early-years education was the Liberal Democrats' first priority. Before anyone reminds me, yes, our proposals would cost some £200 million in the first year and, yes, we do believe that we must be open and honest and say that we would fund that through taxation.
The reality is that we cannot have a quality early-years education system on the cheap. If the Government propose simply to replicate the voucher system under a different name, the Secretary of State's comments to the House on 21 November 1995 may well be thrown back in his face.

Mr. Robert Walter: I welcome the debate on a most important area of education. I share the concerns of my hon. Friends that not a single Government Back Bencher is present. If the statistics are correct, the education professionals who have joined the Labour Benches far outnumber those on the Conservative Benches. Moreover, the Prime Minister, when asked about his policies during the election, summed them up by saying, "Education, education, education." Obviously, that did not include pre-school education.
I am committed to the concept of nursery education. Not only have I had three children who have gone through a nursery school, but so committed am I that, when my


last child was there, I agreed to be a parent governor. For the past 16 years, I have been the chairman of governors of a state nursery school not half a mile from the House.
It is a school which, on successive inspections, inspectors have described as a centre of excellence. It is one which I am glad to say has benefited from a committed local authority, the Conservative-controlled City of Westminster, which was committed even before the previous Government's nursery education proposals to providing nursery education for all three and four-year-olds within the city of Westminster. Perhaps I should not say too much, but we receive funding from the city of Westminster which averages slightly more than £5,000 per full-time pupil equivalent.
However, I do not believe that there is a division between Conservative Members and those few on the Government Benches in the desired goals of the debate. When she was Secretary of State for Education and Science in the early 1970s, Baroness Thatcher was committed to nursery education for all. But the last Government did something about it. The framework was established by the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), in a speech in October 1974. He said:
Because any additional publicly-funded provision must be of high quality, it must promote diversity and parental choice. And it must be carefully targeted in a way that expands, and does not crowd out, the private and voluntary provision we have at present".
The nursery voucher scheme broke new ground in education. It provided a unique system of parental choice and control and equal treatment and equal access to funds for the state, voluntary and private sectors. For the first time, it introduced Ofsted inspections to a sector that had previously been only partially inspected. That quality control laid down some desirable learning objectives—that all children should have personal and social skills taught to them, that they should all benefit from language and literary skills, that they should all acquire a basic mathematical knowledge and all acquire a knowledge and understanding of the world, including science and music.
I believe that the new Government share those goals. We can deduce from the Government's election manifesto that they are certainly committed to nursery education, but during the election they were also committed to the abolition of the voucher system. They have introduced no legislation to that effect, nor has the Secretary of State made a statement to the House. But the Government have not been idle. They issued a circular to chief education officers on 22 May, to which reference has already been made, and the Secretary of State kindly informed the press in a press notice, also on 22 May, of the Government's plans. I find it slightly disturbing that, in the eight weeks that I have been a Member of Parliament, the Government should introduce such important changes by circular and press release rather than in the House.
Let us examine the Government's proposal. The basic principle laid down by the Secretary of State in his press release calls for "a fresh start"—that is an interesting phrase—"in early years education." The Secretary of State continued:
We are committed to providing high quality nursery places for all four-year-olds where parents want one.
Of course, that is no different from the proposals and policies of the previous Government.
What concerns me more, however, is that the circular sent to local education authorities contained three different proposals. It required all local education authorities to tell the Secretary of State by noon last Monday whether they intended to introduce an interim early-years development plan. If that were the case, they had to produce the plan by 1 July—Tuesday of next week. The plan was to cover the period from September this year to April next year. The second proposal related to authorities with no plan in place for that period. Finally, on an as yet undefined basis, local education authorities, in partnership with the private and voluntary sectors, were to be responsible for the provision of nursery education in their areas from April 1998.
Will the Minister tell us how many local education authorities have said that they intend to submit an interim early-years plan for the period from September until next April? In areas where there will be no plan, has any estimate been made of either the saving or cost of cancelling the nursery voucher scheme, sending numerous letters and circulars to parents, sending application forms to all parents in non-scheme areas, issuing certificates to those parents—certificates which, as one of my hon. Friends has already said, bear a striking resemblance to vouchers—readjusting local education authorities' standard spending assessments and then repeating the whole process in respect of spring 1998?
The system proposed in the circular is confusing and bureaucratic. It states that in the week commencing 9 June, letters are to be sent to all parents, but there will be three variations on the letter:

"(i) to parents of children currently using vouchers in local education authority or grant-maintained provision…
(ii) to parents of children currently using vouchers in private/voluntary provision…
(iii) to parents newly eligible for the Autumn term".

In the week commencing 23 June, pre-printed application forms are dispatched
to appropriate parents in those LEAs not planning to submit an interim early-years development plan.
In the week commencing 28 July:
Eligibility certificates start to be issued to parents who have applied for them.
During the week commencing 6 October, letters go to
parents of children newly eligible for Spring term".
In the week commencing 27 October, letters go to
parents using certificates in the Autumn term who will also be eligible for the Spring term.
Finally, in the week commencing 1 December, eligibility certificates for the spring term start to be issued and then letters will be sent to
parents who applied for an eligibility certificate but whose child appeared on the same Autumn term class lists.
That is the most confusing set of arrangements. One or two parents might have been confused by the introduction of the voucher scheme, but one or two thousand, if not tens of thousands, will be even more confused now.
By April 1999, the Government want all four-year-olds to have some form of pre-school education, as stated in their circular. As has already been pointed out, no extra funding is available. The date of April 1999 implies something of a slippage from what one deduced was the Government's original policy.
We all support the concept of nursery education for four-year-olds. We all support, when funding is available, the extension of that form of education to three-year-olds, but can we be assured that this will not be lost in the quagmire of bureaucratic control that has been introduced to replace what was a simple, easy-to-understand voucher system that is already in place and which could easily continue?

Mr. Tim Collins: I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for enabling this debate to take place. This is an enormously important subject to all hon. Members. Having said that, I greatly regret the fact that Conservative Members have outnumbered Labour Members by at least 2:1 and, on one occasion, by 4:1. It is difficult to reconcile that with the statements made by Labour candidates during the election when they parroted their leader's claim that Labour's priority was "education, education, education." Looking at the sea of empty green leather in front of us, one would be forgiven for thinking that perhaps the landslide on 1 May was in our favour rather than Labour's. Sadly, that was not the case, but if Labour Members continue to ignore the needs of parents by spurning such debates, perhaps the position will be reversed before too long.
We have heard a great deal this morning about the importance of pre-school education. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) for having dug out so assiduously the American research, which shows that pre-school education can play a vital role in the development of society as a whole. Those who have benefited from it appear to have a reduced inclination towards crime, as well as greater employment prospects and even increased chances of a happy, stable family life.
All-party agreement on the importance of wider pre-school education provision than ever before is vital. I believe that there is such agreement. The question is how that can be achieved. Lady Thatcher, as Secretary of State for Education in 1973, committed the Heath Government to the provision of pre-school education. Given that there was only a year between her declaration and the fall of that Government in 1974, it is not surprising that no progress was made. Sadly, no progress was made during the more than five years of the last Labour Government. It is also a matter of some regret that, for the first 14 or 15 years of the last Conservative Government, no substantial progress was made.
However, in 1994, 15 years after the 1979 election, the then Prime Minister made a clear and categorical commitment—the first that had been made—to universal provision of nursery and pre-school education from the budget of the Department for Education and Employment. That commitment was delivered on time earlier this year. It is a matter of considerable regret that the nursery voucher scheme, which, despite its inevitable teething problems, is beginning to work well, seems to be falling victim to the Government's ideological obsession with stamping out parental choice.
There is a pattern in the Government's approach to education. Any policy that places power in the hands of parents and puts choice in the hands not of bureaucrats but of those who bring up children is to be eliminated.

The assisted places scheme is to be exterminated. Grant-maintained schools are to be stamped out. City technology colleges are to dynamited. Grammar schools, no doubt, will be taken out and shot at dawn.
That is the future under the new Labour Government. Anyone who does not accept their local comprehensive school, provided by the local education authority, will have no other choice, unless they are on a salary similar to the Solicitor-General's, which we were debating last night. He can pay for private education for all his children on a salary provided by the taxpayer. Sadly, we are not all in that happy position.
We understand that the Labour party believes that power should be removed from parents, but why is the Minister seeking to put so much power and trust in the hands of local education authorities? Most observers of education in this country recognise that local education authorities have consistently failed those who depend on state education. Time and again we hear stories of failing schools, failing local education authorities, bureaucracy run rampant and money being grabbed and held at the town hall rather than being delivered to the chalk face, where it is needed.
Why does the Minister believe that the future of the critical expanding area of pre-school education should rest in the hands of local education authorities? What assurances will she demand to ensure that resources are not held by town hall bureaucrats and will be passed down to where they need to be spent—with the pupils and teachers?
We have also heard of the importance of diversity. When the Minister liaises with the local education authorities that respond to the Department's circular on an early-years development plan, will she be looking for evidence that they will seek to preserve diversity in provision in their area? Will she make it clear that she will not accept an early-years development plan that relies solely on local education authority provision and that she wants continued Church provision, voluntary group provision and private sector provision in every part of the country? Will she go beyond that and encourage the growth of such sectors in areas where parents currently have little alternative to local education authority provision?
What steps will the Minister take to stop what I think it is not too strong to call the blackmail indulged in by some local education authorities—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): Blackmail?

Mr. Collins: Yes indeed, that is the right word. They tell parents that, unless they sign up for reception classes at their local school, they have no prospect of their children being able to go to that local primary school of their choice at the age of five. In rural areas such as mine in Cumbria, that is a real threat over the heads of parents, because there may be only one primary school within some miles of their home. If they are told that, unless they sign up to the local reception class for their pre-school child they will not be guaranteed a place at that primary school when their child reaches school age, any element of choice is removed from them. I hope that the Minister will address that.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister should also encourage


planning departments to be more sympathetic to applications for the conversion of redundant farm buildings in rural areas to provide pre-school nursery provision? There must be equal provision throughout the country, and rural areas must not be neglected.

Mr. Collins: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Like me, he represents a rural constituency. He is right to identify a problem in the planning system, which allows insufficient flexibility for the use of redundant farm buildings. I join him in commending to the Minister the idea that the Department should encourage local planning authorities up and down the land, particularly in rural areas, to look imaginatively at ways of providing additional facilities and buildings for the provision of pre-school education in as wide an area as possible to maximise parental choice, especially in rural areas, where many parents feel that they have no choice and sometimes look enviously at those in urban areas who, because of where they have chosen to live, have the advantage of more choice.
Technology has not been mentioned so far. Within a few years, all those in pre-school education will have been born in the 21st century. Anyone who sees advertisements for children's toys or visits a toy shop knows that one of the fastest-growing sectors in children's toys—certainly in educational toys—is equipment that enables even very small children to become familiar with keyboard skills and the layout of the personal computer, acquiring knowledge that they will need throughout their lives.
For those born in the 1990s and the early years of the next century, the ability to manipulate data and understand how computers operate, finding that a computer is a friend, will be as basic as the skills of reading and writing. I realise that the Minister may not be able to provide an instant solution, but will she consider encouraging all children in pre-school education to have some familiarity with computers? Of course they are not going to be producing programs—we shall not create the next Bill Gates at the age of five—but they could be familiarised with the size, shape and functions of a personal computer. That is an important part of the strategy for pre-school education.
Will the Minister also talk about discipline? The issue is important throughout the education system, but is particularly important among very young children. We are reluctant to think of children under five as capable of committing serious offences—I am sure that almost all of them are not. None the less, in preparing children for later life and for schooling, it is important that some element within the curriculum and the education with which they are provided should encourage the growth of self-discipline, a belief that they are accountable for their actions and the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. When the Minister amplifies the strategy that she has provided for pre-school education, I hope that she will deal with that issue.
The final consideration that I wanted to raise has been helpfully previewed for me by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs). Rural areas are in many respects different from urban areas, not least in the provision of education. The question of choice is inevitably different in rural areas. The provision of buildings requires flexibility in the planning system, as the hon. Gentleman

said. There is also the issue of how one ensures that in providing pre-school education in rural areas one builds on the best of what is already there and does not stamp out excellent existing provision.
In my constituency the local authority makes high-quality provision for many parents, and I pay tribute to it for that. We also happen to be fortunate enough to have extensive activity among voluntary groups of all sorts. There is a traditional old-world approach that encourages involvement of community groups and voluntary provision. Such an approach has to some extent died out in other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that, when she conies to review policy on pre-school education in rural areas, the Minister will place importance on the valuable role that voluntary groups can play in assisting direct LEA provision or providing their own forms of pre-school education.
In conclusion, I agree with other hon. Members that there is clearly all-party agreement on the need for pre-school education and for appropriate resources to be found. There is a distinction between the Government and the Opposition on whether the Conservative Government's nursery voucher scheme should continue. The Government will come to regret their decision so swiftly to stamp it out for ideological reasons on entry into office. I hope that the Minister will give priority to the expansion of diversity, the transfer of power and information to parents and the provision of at least as diverse and excellent provision in rural areas as in urban areas.

Mrs. Angela Browning: "New Labour—because Britain deserves better." The first paragraph of the section on education in the Labour manifesto states:
Education. It is Labour's number one priority.

Mr. David Jamieson: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Browning: The Whip is hear-hearing. He needs to hear-hear, because there is no one sitting behind him to hear-hear on behalf of the Labour party. If education were Labour's No. 1 priority, one would have expected the Government Benches to be packed today, but, as other hon. Members have pointed out, the speeches in this debate have come exclusively— [Interruption.] I can count. I must tell the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) that I had a grammar school education.
It is a disgrace that a party that purported to put education first has been the last—the last to speak and the last to contribute to the debate on a subject that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) has rightly brought to our attention in the Chamber this morning. Together with my hon. Friends the Members for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), he has identified clearly what has happened in just eight weeks.
The Labour Government, in their intemperate move to overthrow one policy and replace it with another—evidently without any real preparation— have created great anxiety among parents of under-fives. The number of questions that have come from my hon. Friends for the


Minister to answer shows only too clearly that there is no stability now and no security for parents of children under five. Many questions are unanswered. I shall give the Minister plenty of time to answer them, so I shall keep my remarks brief.
I want to build on some issues that hon. Members have raised this morning, especially the interim development plan. The letter to parents from the Department states that, in the absence of an interim development plan from the local education authority, the Department will issue certificates to parents. Is there any sense of permanence about that? Is it an interim policy? Can the Minister guarantee that, whether there is LEA provision or not, the Government will continue to issue certificates on a permanent basis to parents who, for whatever reason, cannot take the option of LEA provision in their area?
I should like also to build on the point about rural provision. Like many Conservative Members, I represent a truly rural constituency. Many of our primary schools do not have the physical capacity to build a nursery class on their sites. If the aim is universal provision by 1998 or 1999, how does the Minister envisage that capital funding will be provided for rural areas in which existing primary schools cannot extend their buildings?
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale mentioned the pressure put on parents by LEA schools to send their children to their own nursery unit in order to have access to a place for their rising five at the primary school. From a sedentary position, the Whip asked me to name names. In the absence of any support from his Back Benchers, he was compelled to make a contribution on behalf of his party, something to which we look forward.
I have already received correspondence from people in Cullompton in my constituency who are concerned about the pressure put on parents. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Devonport will answer the debate. From a sedentary position, he seems to have said more than almost anyone else in the Chamber this morning. Such pressure is of great concern. If LEAs put pressure on parents, they take choice away from them and make a mockery of what the Minister has said will happen—that the Government will continue to acknowledge a role for the private sector in nursery education.
Will the Minister also respond on the following points? I have noted with great interest the Labour document "Opening doors to a learning society", which was endorsed only last year in another policy document. It said:
Each local education authority will have restored to it the role in the provision of nursery provision outlined by the 1944 Education Act.
Will she confirm that the Education Act 1944 will be restored verbatim to the statute book? My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury asked about the role of an LEA and whether it would be placed on a fully statutory basis or would have an enabling role. It would helpful if the Minister would clarify that matter.
Another issue is the special educational needs of under-fives. The same Labour document stated:
We believe therefore that each local education authority should identify special educational needs (SEN) co-ordinators for early years provision.

Are steps in hand for that? What progress has been made and how will the Minister liaise with the other statutory bodies involved in SEN provision in health and social services? Nursery education for children with special educational needs will have a higher cost attached to it. If it is to become an education responsibility, will there be a transfer of funds from health or social services? At present, health and social services departments run some special units which provide some form of pre-school or nursery education for special educational needs children.
I return to the Labour document and the various points made by hon. Members about people who live in rural communities. It stated:
Any extension of nursery education is of little use to children and their parents unless it is accompanied by practical solutions to problems, such as a lack of co-ordination of those with responsibility for under-fives care and lack of effective public transport.
Are we to assume therefore that people in rural communities can now anticipate either provision for transport costs or funding for provision of transport costs, so that the Government's pledge to offer nursery education to every four-year-old can be delivered? We all appreciate that those who live in far-flung hamlets in rural communities face practical problems with regard to transport provision or costs. It would be helpful to know what the Government intend to do to help that group of parents to benefit from the pledge that they have made.
The Government have made particular promises about education provision for three-year-olds. We should like a progress report on how far the Minister has got with her analysis of how that provision could be offered. We should also like to know about the time scale and the costings so that we can judge how the Government will deliver that promise.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on securing this Adjournment debate. He has a good record of managing to secure such debates on education, and no doubt his contribution today will be the first of many. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on her appointment to the Opposition education team. I am sure that she will now be able to spend more time in this country than she could in her previous position. I hope that she will find her new job fulfilling and will enjoy talking about children rather than cattle; it is certainly a far more interesting subject to me.
This has been a good debate on an important subject. We all share the concern that has been expressed in the House over the past two years about early-years education—a worthy development here. The Labour party has no need to apologise for its record on nursery education. Although the previous Government did little about it for the vast majority of their 18 years in power, Labour local authorities have ensured that many children have had the opportunity to enjoy a top-rate start to their education. It was Labour local authorities, rather than Conservative or Liberal Democratic ones, that delivered the goods. We are happy to be judged on our record in local government and we will match it with a good record in national government. I am conscious of the time constraint, so I will try to say as quickly as possible what I intended to say and answer the points raised.
I confirm the importance that the Labour Government attach to early-years education and our commitment to something that was not mentioned—the need to integrate early-years education and child care and to give families with young children the support they need.
I am delighted to remind the House that the Government have implemented their pledge to abolish nursery vouchers. In a few weeks, at the end of the summer term, they will be no more. Few will mourn their passing, but many will rejoice at the fact that the money that was formerly wasted on bureaucracy can now be used to provide nursery education.
I did not recognise the nursery voucher scheme that was described by Conservative Members, and I doubt that it would be recognised by parents, providers or the former Select Committee on Education and Employment, which had a Tory majority in the previous Parliament.

Mrs. Browning: Can the Minister tell us the administrative costs of the scheme that she proposes? I am not talking about the inspection costs—the hon. Lady will appreciate that there is a distinction between inspection and administration.

Ms Morris: We have extra money, £100 million, which the Government have put into the early-years scheme in addition to that taken from local authorities through the standard spending assessment.
The hon. Lady will know that £20 million was set aside for inspection and the administration of the bureaucracy behind the nursery voucher scheme. We had a simple choice between spending the £20 million on the provision of places and their inspection and siphoning some of it off to spend on bureaucracy. The hon. Lady's Government decided to siphon some of it off to spend on bureaucracy, but we will make sure that the £20 million will be used to secure places for children. Between £5 million and £10 million will be available for extra places.
The voucher scheme had many faults—for instance, it did not provide any extra places for four-year-olds. In Norfolk, where one of the pilot schemes was conducted, almost a dozen pre-school groups were forced to close because of the competition of the market. It is no good complaining about primary schools that were forced to attract four-year-olds and changed their admission policies to ensure that they got those children, when it was the Conservative Government who advocated the market approach. That is what happens when one relies on competition. Schools will compete against each other and use any means in their power to ensure that they win.
For all the belly-aching that we have heard from Conservative Members, their Government took no action to ensure that four-year-olds did not join reception classes that were too large. They did nothing to stop schools saying that a child could get a place in a reception class only if he or she had been at their nursery.
The previous Government handed over pre-school education to the market—the market ruled, people competed, and the children lost. That is why the Labour Government are determined to offer early-years provision that relies on partnership and co-operation rather than the harmful competition that was fostered by the nursery voucher scheme.
There are many misconceptions about our early-years development programme and genuine questions about it that need to be answered. In the next few weeks, we will publish a White Paper for consultation. It will outline more than I am able to do today—partly because of time constraints and partly because it would not be proper to do so—our medium and long-term plans for early-years provision. Those plans will address many of the issues that have been raised today by Opposition Members, and I hope that they will excuse me for not giving them the detailed answers that they may want.
Our proposals were set out in our document "Early Excellence Centres", which was published in November 1996. They have the twin goals of developing the potential of every child and sustaining the family in a changing and challenging world. We have invited local authorities to submit to the Department their interim early-years development plan. Next week, we will announce the number of local authorities that have done so, but I can tell the House now that a good many have already shown enthusiasm about their potential role.
The role of local authorities is not to provide places within the maintained sector but to work with others in the private and voluntary sectors to secure sufficient places for the four-year-olds in their areas, and, later, for three-year-olds. Those authorities will have to provide the Department with an early-years development plan in accordance with that drawn up by the Early Years Development Forum. Although local authorities will have a lead role to play on that forum, it will include representatives of the private and voluntary sectors as well as health workers, parents and child minders. Those individuals have a natural interest in securing good-quality nursery education and care.
That is why we will not end up with a local authority-dominated programme. The very act of drawing up the early-years development plan will occur in consultation with all the providers. The co-operation and planning that was missing from the nursery vouchers scheme will be included.
Central Government will not approve any plan unless it reveals that a partnership will be established between the voluntary and private sectors. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has any intention of approving any plan that reveals neither consultation with those other sectors nor any effort to squeeze out from them all that they have to offer. That is our firm commitment.
We will withhold part of the funding unless such co-operation and consultation are apparent. We are deadly serious about that. That policy represents the way forward, for two reasons. Quite honestly, because of the low base from which we are starting in many parts of the country—in many cases, we are talking about Tory authorities that have not discharged their responsibilities correctly—we need what the voluntary and private sectors can offer. We cannot do it without their provision. Sometimes, their provision is more appropriate to parents' needs than is provision within the maintained sector.
We are determined to start meeting the needs of parents in the wider sense—not only with two and a half hours a morning while their child is educated, but with wraparound child care provision that can meet the needs of a family, often headed by a single mother who has to or who chooses to work. It is only when we bring the


private, voluntary and maintained sectors together that we stand a chance, first, of securing provision and, secondly, of having the diversity of provision to meet those needs.
Early-years education is at the top of our agenda, and I am glad that it is at the top of other hon. Members' agendas. I look forward to an exciting and challenging time in which we can, at last, fulfil our wish to provide top-quality nursery education to the many children whose parents wish to avail themselves of it.

Mr. Lidington: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you initiate an urgent check into the annunciator system in the Palace and associated buildings? I ask that so that the House can be assured that the fact that 400 Labour Members of Parliament, including more than 100 teachers, were unable to provide one Back Bencher to support—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That is not a point of order. There has been no indication this morning that anything is faulty in that respect.

RAF Burtonwood

Ms Helen Southworth: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech on a topic that is so important to my constituents. My constituency, Warrington, South, is the very centre of the north west, both geographically and economically. It is strategically important for business, being sited at the crossroads of the M6 and M62 motorways, midway between the cities of Manchester and Liverpool and on the route of the west coast main line.
Warrington has been significant as a business and commercial centre since the bronze age; then the Romans came along. They recognised a quality site when they saw it and established a boom town on the banks of the Mersey at Wilderspool in Latchford, the site of the original ford. The Roman ships that came up the Mersey with goods for the north-west began a waterways tradition that is still active in Warrington, South, although the waterways now support the leisure and tourism industry.
We in Warrington, South are innovators: the first canal to be built in Britain—the Sankey—runs through Great Sankey in my constituency. With the Mersey, the Bridgewater and the Manchester Ship canal, it is one of four inland waterways that are significant features and monuments to Warrington's contribution to the industrial revolution.
Cromwell planned his civil war campaign in Warrington, South and, more happily, on dreamy afternoons Lewis Carroll found inspiration in the beautiful Cheshire countryside and wrote "Alice in Wonderland". We in Warrington are fond of our association with "Alice in Wonderland" and I have wondered in the past few weeks whether it is that association which has helped me to feel familiar with the rabbit warren that is the Palace of Westminster. I have certainly seen many hon. Members running down the corridors of power and wonder whether perhaps they were saying, "Oh, my ears and whiskers, I'm late." When learning about the more obscure traditions of this House, I have often wanted to say like Alice, "Curiouser and curiouser!" There is one key difference: we do not have to paint the white roses red in this House—the electorate have already done that for us.
Cheshire and Lancashire meet in Warrington, South, which contains the best of both worlds. We value our traditions and look to the future. We work in partnerships—between business, local government, voluntary organisations and neighbourhood groups—in seeking to build our community for the benefit of the many and not of the privileged few. On 2 May, we knew that we had a Government who were forward-looking and who would value local communities and recognise the need to work in partnership. We have a one-nation Government, and we welcome them.
My constituency is formed from parts of the old Warrington, North and Warrington, South constituencies. My constituents are fortunate in having been represented by two determined Members of Parliament who have promoted their best interests and been excellent ambassadors for the town. Part of my constituency—Howley and Whitecross—was in Warrington, North and was represented by Doug Hoyle. Doug is loved and respected by the people of Warrington, for whom he has been an indomitable voice. He is now continuing his work on their behalf in another place, and I wish him well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who is sitting to my right, represented the old constituency of Warrington, South for five years and before that he was an excellent leader of the local council. There has been a steady stream of people telling me how effective a Member of Parliament Mike Hall was, and that he will be a hard act to follow. I look forward to that challenge. Mike was a determined voice for his constituents and I wish him and his constituents in Weaver Vale every success.
Burtonwood air base is important to Warrington, South constituents. Mike has represented their interest and concern over the past few years—indeed, he held an Adjournment debate on the subject on 3 May 1995—and I am taking on that mantle in this debate. The air base is a classic example of the Tory Government's attitude to local people and communities. They refused to consult local people about the future use of a large area of land in the middle of their neighbourhood. Had the Tory Government taken the trouble to ask local people about the future use of Burtonwood, they would have avoided the major problems now facing my constituents.
To describe the area, I have to take the House back to 1942, when RAF Burtonwood was a supply depot receiving goods flown in and shipped over from America. Set in the middle of open countryside on the edge of Warrington, it was serviced by a link from the west coast line. There were few movements on local roads and the site had little impact on surrounding countryside. After the cessation of hostilities in 1945, the base became a long-term storage depot for the United States army. The majority of goods movements still took place by rail, with short vehicle movements in and out of the complex. That remained the position until 1992.
The fact that the site retained the name of RAF Burtonwood reflects the Lancashire fondness for keeping place names sometimes centuries after they have ceased to describe a function. No aeroplanes have used the base for at least 50 years, and throughout the entire period the usage has not represented an intrusion to adjoining residents, given the low level of vehicle movements to and from the site.
While RAF Burtonwood experienced the passage of 50 years with only minor changes, the open fields around saw major planned development. The establishment of Warrington new town meant a period of rapid growth in commercial and, most significant to this debate, residential building. Warrington and Runcorn development corporation and, more recently, the Commission for the New Towns, both of which are agencies of the Department of the Environment, have been directly responsible for the extensive building of high-quality residential homes. They have created a leafy suburb to the north, east and west of the Burtonwood side.
The air base is now completely surrounded by what my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale described in 1995, quoting from a 1987 sales brochure from Fairclough Homes, as:
A carefully chosen location with an abundance of trees, bushes and flowers adorning its landscaped gardens and peaceful cul-de-sac approach road, offering a tranquil and idyllic setting for this delightful range of elegant homes".
Believe me, that was true.
The Government created that semi-rural setting and my constituents moved in, specifically because it was a quiet suburb in which to bring up their families. They settled into a comfortable village community. Then, on Thursday 21 May 1992, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale received a letter from the Ministry of Defence, informing him that on the following day at 1 pm, the decision to close RAF Burtonwood by summer 1993 would be announced. That announcement was the beginning of radical and unpleasant change for my constituents—change initiated and carried out by the Tory Government. It took place without consultation, and it has resulted in major problems because of inappropriate use of the site.
In his previous incarnation as Member for Warrington, South, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale said:
Without consulting local Members of Parliament, Warrington borough council's planning authority or local residents, the MOD unilaterally decided to let the air base as a storage depot for heavy goods vehicles and trailers. It made that decision overnight" —[Official Report, 3 May 1995; Vol. 259, c. 297.]
That decision has had a radical impact on the quality of life of my constituents, with hundreds of heavy goods vehicles travelling through residential roads at all hours of the day and night.
Two public inquiries have been held, which considered applications for goods vehicle operators' licences to extend even further the heavy goods vehicle usage of the local residential roads. The statement by the deputy licensing commissioner in his decision of 20 December 1995 gives an impartial view of the unacceptable situation for my constituents. He said:
There is considerable adverse environmental effect from noise, fumes, disturbance and visual intrusion occasioned to all residents in the vicinity of R.A.F. Burtonwood on the North, South, East and West boundaries caused by the operation of heavy goods vehicles moving to and from R.A.F. Burtonwood and on parking and manoeuvring at the site at all hours of the day and night. This is because the site has been let off at extremely low rental rates by the M.O.D's agents for warehousing storage purposes without any consultation or consideration of the environmental effects of attracting a very large number of H.G.Vs to service the businesses of distributing the goods from the warehouses.
For the past four years, local people, Members of Parliament and Warrington borough council have sought a resolution of this problem from an intractable Tory Government, who have ridden roughshod over the local community. In May 1997, my constituents decided that enough was enough—they voted overwhelmingly to show their confidence in new Labour, turning a Tory majority of nearly 3,000 into a Labour majority of 11,807.
Already that confidence is being justified, as the Labour Government introduce a legislative programme to deliver our election pledges to the people: to reduce class sizes, to introduce faster track punishments for persistent young offenders, to cut NHS waiting lists, to get 250,000 under-25-year-olds off benefit and into work and to set tough rules for Government spending and borrowing.
Those are first steps, but already they are making a real difference to the lives of local people. Already my constituents living around RAF Burtonwood find that they are speaking to a Government who know how to listen to, and take account of, local opinion.
Within the past few days, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has made it clear that the MOD, as landlord of the site, has taken into account the wishes


of local people and will not grant approval to Professional Distribution Services (International) Ltd. to park vehicles overnight at RAF Burtonwood, thus ensuring that there is no escalation of HGV activity.
This debate gives me the opportunity to bring to the Minister's attention the long campaign to achieve a satisfactory use for this site and to ask for his support in achieving a resolution.
Once it became clear that the MOD was declaring the site surplus to requirements, the local plan was updated to include a notation for the site which provided for an "urban village" concept, with a mixture of land uses including residential, commercial and open space. RAF Burtonwood is one of three large sites in close proximity which are of strategic importance to the development of Warrington. Each site is managed by a different Government Department or agency. I share with Warrington borough council and local residents the opinion that it would make sense to combine all the public land in the area under a single agency, so that there can be a comprehensive and integrated approach to future development in the area, which can address the concerns and aspirations of residents satisfactorily.
The previous Government failed my constituents when they turned RAF Burtonwood into a commercial storage and distribution depot. With a new Government, we have the opportunity to take a positive way forward, which has been advocated by local people and local elected representatives. With a strategic approach, we can create the urban village that my constituents have good reason to call for, and we can deliver the growth, prosperity and new employment opportunities which the Warrington of the future needs.

Mr. Mike Hall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) on her maiden speech. It must be rare for the immediate predecessor of the Member who makes a maiden speech to be present in the Chamber to receive such high praise; I thank her for it. As one of her constituents, I am confident that she will do an excellent job representing her entire constituency. Judging from the quality of her maiden speech, we are certain that she will do so. I look forward to many opportunities to debate in the Chamber with my hon. Friend the future of the north-west and the whole country under new Labour and the premiership of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for allowing me to speak briefly in the debate. I shall not detain the House long.
I am delighted that there is now a prospect of a better use for the RAF Burtonwood site. I declare an interest, as a resident of the picturesque village aptly described by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South.
I am certain that the Under-Secretary can give assurances on several matters. First, we need a planned way forward for the development of the site, which meets the approval of, not only the local planning authority, but local residents. Secondly, we need an environmental audit into the deficiencies in the area so that whatever happens at RAF Burtonwood will help to make the position better, not worse. Thirdly, in the short term, we need to consider what is happening on the site now, to minimise the impact on residents who live around RAF Burtonwood.
I am confident that, when the Under-Secretary addresses the House shortly, he will give us assurances.
Finally, I place on record my pleasure at hearing the news that the MOD will not, as landlord, give its approval to the vehicle operator's licence of Professional Distribution Services (International) Ltd. That is welcome news indeed. I look forward to the Minister's speech.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Just before this debate started, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) raised the issue of attendance in the Chamber. I think it pertinent, therefore, to point out the lack of attendance—even on the Front Bench—of any Conservative Member for this important debate. It shows the Conservatives' lack of interest in the north-west and shows how right the north-west was to reject them totally on 1 May.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) on her success in obtaining the debate. Obviously, it is a matter of great importance to her constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who spoke briefly. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South on an excellent speech, in which she spoke movingly about her constituency and forcefully argued the case for her constituents, as I am sure that she will continue to do for many years to come.
The disposal of the former United States Army base at Burtonwood near Warrington has, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South said, generated considerable public interest. I believe, therefore, that, before I address the detailed points that she raised, a brief resume of the issue would be helpful, to give a greater understanding of the background.
The size of the defence estate has been reducing more or less since the end of the second world war. With the ending of the cold war, a large amount of surplus defence property was identified and disposal of most of it is in hand or completed. Moreover, the problem of how effectively to dispose of large, complex military sites is currently facing a number of allies.
In the United Kingdom, we are committed to continuing the process of identifying surplus assets, and that will be a feature of our recently announced strategic defence review. Whenever possible, we work closely with local authorities in determining what long-term alternative uses might be suitable for such sites, and we shall try to ensure that disposals are managed in a way that will allow the land to be returned to non-defence use as soon as possible.
RAF Burtonwood was used by the United States Army until August 1993, when it vacated the site as a result of the general withdrawal of US forces from Europe following the end of the cold war. Following that withdrawal, the Ministry of Defence considered whether the site could be used for alternative defence purposes. After much detailed consideration, it was concluded that it would not be practicable to use the site for UK defence purposes. Accordingly, a decision was taken to proceed with plans to dispose of the site, adopting an open-market strategy. I recognise that it took the Department some time to reach this conclusion, but that may be a reflection of changing assumptions at the time of the "Front Line First" study and also of the considerable efforts made to identify alternative defence uses.
RAF Burtonwood comprises some 20 hectares of covered warehousing under one roof, known as Header house, and is reputedly the largest building of its kind in Europe. The base, in its current configuration, was developed in the early 1950s for use by the United States army as a storage depot, to provide logistic support for American operations in Germany. It provided 30 warehouses, each extending to 5,000 sq m. Overall, therefore, the site provides 150,000 sq m of covered storage.
Government policy on disposal is to secure the best price that can reasonably be obtained for surplus property. Treasury guidance recognises, however, that this approach needs to be in accord with the local planning framework; and that there may also be circumstances—for instance, to do with historic buildings—in which it would be reasonable to consider wider issues. The Government's aim is also to work with local authorities and others to ensure that protecting the interests of the taxpayer does not conflict with meeting our wider employment and environmental objectives, or with local planning and social considerations.
We must recognise that any empty site such as RAF Burtonwood is a substantial burden on resources. The costs incurred in maintaining and securing empty sites are significant and ways must be found of meeting them. The early disposal of surplus property is and will continue to be a high priority. But until such time as disposal is secured, these running costs, which fall on my Department, must be considered.
In other words, there is a further element in this difficult and complex equation: the taxpayers' interest, as they have to meet these costs—in this case through the Ministry of Defence and RAF Strike Command, which is the top-level budget holder responsible for the site. My hon. Friend may be interested to learn that the costs of maintaining the site are about £16,000 a week, or over £850,000 a year.
In order to defray costs in the short term, the Department has arranged a number of short-term lettings to reduce the taxpayers' expenditure. Although, as my hon. Friend will understand, we regard the exact income that we are generating from tenants at RAF Burtonwood as commercially confidential, I can advise her that it comes to a total of nearly £1 million a year, net of costs. She will appreciate, I am sure, that that removes a not insignificant burden on the defence budget, and is ultimately of benefit to the taxpayer, too. In addition to these returns, there are about 300 people working on the site.
The current situation has come about as a result of the original disposal strategy under the previous Administration, which was to build up the commercial use of the site by completing new tenancies of three and five years' duration and then selling the site as a going concern with the benefit of good, short-term income, thereby allowing prospective purchasers to plan in the longer term for its redevelopment. It was felt then that that presented an opportunity to dispose of the site quickly while—because of the generated cash flow—meeting our obligation to maximise the return to the taxpayer.
I must stress, however, that my Department never considered that the site would be used for storage and distribution in the long term. On the contrary, it was

envisaged as becoming part of the sustainable redevelopment which, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, is taking place in the Great Sankey area in general and the adjoining repair depot—the BRD site—in particular.
The local defence land agent met the Commission for the New Towns and PACE—Property Advisers to the Civil Estate—in late 1995 and early 1996 to review the strategy for the sale of Government land assets in the Burtonwood area of Warrington. As a result of those meetings, the Commission for the New Towns appointed consultants to produce a report, the Westbrook study, on the matter; it identified various benefits to be had from these public bodies co-operating in their local disposal strategies.
However, there were difficulties in progressing the study's immediate recommendations. These included problems over access arrangements to the site through the land owned by the Commission for the New Towns, and it is a matter of regret that no agreement was reached on that. As a result, PACE, which had already secured a residential planning consent, decided to proceed with the first phase of the disposal of its own site—but this action does not compromise any of the Westbrook study recommendations.
We fully recognise that the original disposal strategy led to a problem with short-term use. Considerable residential development has been taking place in the vicinity of RAF Burtonwood in recent years, and the amount of commercial use, especially the increase in HGV movements, has given rise to a considerable number of justifiable complaints from local residents about nuisance and noise, particularly at night.
It was clear that our commercial tenants created more HGV movements than those generated by the US army, whose activities primarily involved the long-term storage of war reserves and so generated relatively few vehicle movements and little on-site activity—especially as a great deal was accomplished by rail. So I understand the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend on behalf of local residents.
In May 1995, the then Minister for Defence Procurement, Roger Freeman, assured the House that there would be no intensification of activity at RAF Burtonwood, and I understand that positive steps have been taken to minimise the disturbance caused by current activities. The local defence land agent, in conjunction with the site's managing agents, has introduced a series of mitigating measures and controls. They include the imposition of stringent site rules, limiting site operating hours, night patrolling, driver training and direction of traffic flow.
We believe that these arrangements have to some extent been successful in getting rid of the worst problems. We understand that Warrington borough council has recently acknowledged that there is no current breach of environmental legislation. We are, however, fully aware that some properties in Burtonwood road still suffer some environmental impact from tenants' HGV movements.
Indeed, as my hon. Friend said, two tenants' applications for operator's licences have been refused on appeal by the north-west traffic commissioner, and another application is pending. We shall not allow any intensification of use; accordingly, we have not given, and will not give, our consent to the site being so used. I have written to my hon. Friend to confirm that, because she rightly drew my attention to the current application.
The Department has continued to examine the various disposal options, and it decided in April to appoint a firm of consultants quickly to review again the avenues available to us. They have reviewed the work undertaken and the progress made to date. They have met all the key players, including representatives of the borough council, PACE, the Commission for the New Towns and two residents' action groups. I am pleased to say that the new study is largely complete and will be presented to RAF Strike Command, the site owner, early next month.
It would be premature at this stage to prejudge the report's recommendations—but they will cover all the various options, including continuing the present B8 use and also the long-term phased development of the site for residential purposes, possibly via a development partnership between the MOD and the Commission for the New Towns or another developer. The report's recommendations will guide me when deciding what the best future disposal strategy might be, bearing in mind the need for more urgency which both my hon. Friends have stressed in today's debate. That is why I wrote to my hon. Friend on 11 June assuring her that the Department and I will consult her and other interested parties before a final decision is made.
I assure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members representing the area that we are very much aware of their concerns and those of local residents regarding the commercial activities at RAF Burtonwood. While the current permitted use of the site is for storage and distribution, it is not envisaged that that will be long-term, given the nature of development on the surrounding sites. We look forward to discussing the future of the site further once we have the new report to hand, which I hope will be in the near future.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency

1 pm

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the financial crisis facing the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The Government are fully aware of the matter, and I seek more than just kind words and platitudes in the Minister's reply.
SEPA needs a commitment of more money or, alternatively, a decision to allow it to reclaim VAT in the same way as its sister body in England and Wales. Scotland will regard anything less as the Government undermining environmental protection. It will show that the Prime Minister's words in the United States on the environmental crisis facing the planet were nothing more than empty rhetoric and an attempt to spin a feel-good story for the UK press.
Many hon. Members will remember the debate surrounding the creation of SEPA and the broad welcome that the body received from a variety of organisations and interest groups in Scotland. A powerful environment agency has long been the policy of the Scottish National party. We want the existing powers strengthened and the agency's resources increased.
In the first year of its operation, SEPA earned positive comment from key environmental groups in Scotland. The head of research at Friends of the Earth Scotland said:
Our view is that SEPA has now found its feet and shown itself to be competent and even-handed …The Agency has shown itself to be fairly open, not afraid of tackling big issues and reasonably forward thinking.
The head of policy at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Scotland, Mr. Steve Sankey, pointed out that SEPA made an impressive start in its first year of operation. However, it now needs to move on to much more proactive work, where it could have a significant input. A sustainability concept is built into its remit and it needs to be able to argue that, in Scotland and for Scotland.
However, SEPA's initial success in getting its work up and running, and in building a fully integrated agency, is threatened by a funding crisis that will prevent any truly proactive work. Resolving the problem lies fairly and squarely in the Government's hands. I wish briefly to explain the basis of the financial crisis, before highlighting in detail the impact of the resulting cuts.
A number of observers estimate that SEPA faces a potential £5 million shortfall in its budget this year. That is due partly to past underfunding by the Scottish Office, but also largely to a tax anomaly, which allows the agency's English and Welsh counterpart, the Environment Agency, to reclaim VAT from Customs and Excise but prevents SEPA from doing the same. The ability to reclaim VAT under section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 is worth some £50 million to the English and Welsh agency, and could be worth £2.7 million to SEPA. That is a significant sum—some 10 per cent. of SEPA's overall budget.
Bodies whose responsibilities SEPA inherited, such as the Scottish River Purification Board, could reclaim VAT, and SEPA rightly set its budget projections assuming that it would enjoy the same rights as its predecessors and the Environment Agency. The Scottish Office settlement for SEPA for this financial year was based on the assumption


that VAT would be recoverable, which has been the assumption since 1 April 1996. Indeed, it was reiterated as recently as 9 May 1997 at a meeting between Scottish Office officials and SEPA.
The Scottish Office seems to have been every bit as certain as SEPA, as recently as last month, that VAT would be recoverable. From the outset, plans have been made on that basis, and on the Scottish Office's reassurance that negotiations between it and Customs and Excise were continuing to resolve the problem.
The Minister can miss out the section of his speech where I anticipate he will offer various legal excuses for not granting SEPA the same reclaim status as the Environment Agency. I understand that the Environment Agency receives its section 33 refund because it receives funding from local authorities, whereas SEPA, as a quango, does not. The current feeling is that to allow a quango to reclaim would open up a precedent for other quangos to demand precisely the same.
I would argue that that is a technical excuse, and one which the Minister has already used in his replies to my recent questions on that issue. I do not want to hear excuses; I want the Government to come forward with solutions; otherwise, the crisis facing SEPA will have extremely damaging consequences for Scotland's environment.
The chair of SEPA's main board, Professor Turmeau, said that the current situation is "daft". Expanding on that, Beth Corcoran, SEPA's head of finance, summed up the problem in the New Statesman, when she said:
It is an anomalous situation that does not make logical sense.
The Government must act now to resolve that anomalous, illogical problem, not run away from it or hide behind civil service excuses.
In recent months, the impact of the budget crises on SEPA has become clearer. John Beveridge, director of SEPA's western region, summed up the broader impact of the threatened shortfall in the New Scientist in April, when he said:
A lot of what we have achieved in the past 12 months is now in jeopardy. Just when we were getting into our stride, we have been stopped in our tracks.
Nationally, SEPA has frozen all job vacancies, halted all capital expenditure and slashed environmental monitoring around factories, sewage works, nuclear plants and fish farms. SEPA's eastern region has suspended monitoring of pollution incidents outside office hours, halved the number of inspections of waste tips and scrapped air sampling around large industrial sites. The impact of such cuts should not be underestimated. The Prime Minister has made much of a claim that the UK will further cut carbon dioxide emissions, but in Scotland essential monitoring of industrial sites' emissions simply will not be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) has had constituency experience of the impact of those cuts. A number of his constituents have had great difficulty even contacting SEPA, never mind getting it to act on the pollution incident that was the focus of their concern.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: My hon. Friend is aware of the atrocious and long-standing environmental

problems affecting the Hospitalfield housing estate in Arbroath, with which SEPA simply cannot cope, because it lacks the equipment to measure pollution and has withdrawn the weekend monitoring service. If we are to have a genuine environmental protection agency, it must be properly equipped and financed, not starved of equipment and finance.

Ms Cunningham: Indeed. Such sentiments are echoed by others.
Judith Nicol, clerk to the River Tweed commissioners, highlighted the risks surrounding the removal of out-of-hours water pollution cover for a river renowned for its salmon runs, and for which water quality is key to a multi-million pound salmon industry. She said:
The emergency cover is something that should be removed as a last resort, not first; whoever is responsible should sort this out as soon as possible because these are fundamental services that need to be maintained.
Thus far, the Government have failed miserably to "sort this out". They must be aware of the consequences of their failure.
In SEPA's western region, plans to clean streams and introduce flood warning systems have been abandoned. In the northern region, laboratory maintenance has ceased. I do not know whether the Government think that some cuts are justifiable, but what has been cut and what is threatened by SEPA's budget crisis include key areas of environmental monitoring, the maintenance of which is essential. For example, does the Minister believe that monitoring radiation levels in the Holy loch should be cut? Well, they have been.
As a result of the costs of monitoring for radioactive particles at Sandside bay, near Dounreay, investigations and monitoring for radiation at other sites will have to be curtailed. Is it acceptable to the Government that SEPA may no longer be in a position effectively to regulate the nuclear industry, or is that part of the plan, with the Environment Agency in England and Wales increasingly encroaching on SEPA's nuclear monitoring responsibilities, especially in the UK Radioactive Incident Monitoring Network?
In addition to SEPA's current duties, which it is struggling to meet, a range of new statutory responsibilities are to fall on the agency. Those include consultation on the national waste strategy and the national air quality strategy, ensuring compliance with waste packaging regulations, and overseeing the extension of pollution controls to small businesses.
On 26 April, The Scotsman quoted an unidentified board member as saying:
There is no way these new responsibilities can be met, it is as simple as that—the Scottish Office needs to give up more money or they can forget it.
That quote identifies the problem and points to the solution.
Professor Colin Reid, professor of environmental law at the university of Dundee, is similarly succinct in his proposed solution. I hope that the Government will respond positively to at least part of his suggested strategy for removing the current burden from SEPA. In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Angus on 7 May, he stated:
A remedy is required, whether short-term support to 'fill the gap' until future budgeting is done on the new basis, or through amendments to the law to relieve SEPA of this burden in the future.


That is the choice facing the Government. They can either make good SEPA's shortfall, or they can pursue a legal solution which would alter SEPA's status to allow the agency to reclaim VAT, or provide a specific exemption that would allow SEPA access to a section 33 payback.
If necessary, the issue must be pursued vigorously with the Treasury. In particular, I hope that the Minister will not allow the Treasury to get away with the sort of nonsense contained in its answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) on 19 June 1997, which stated:
Tax liabilities of publicly funded bodies are taken into account when setting levels of public expenditure in Scotland."—[Official Report, 19 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 270.]
SEPA has been stumped by a loophole—a technicality—which has punched an enormous hole in its budget. That irrelevant ministerial reply displays a lack of understanding of the problem and a contempt for the needs of Scotland's environment.
The Scottish Office has been guilty of a similar contempt in its reply to my own questions on SEPA. The Minister tells me rather uninformatively in a written answer that the Secretary of State for Scotland "regularly discusses various issues" with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is clear from the Minister's reply that he has not discussed SEPA's VAT reclaim. That is a failure on the part of the Scottish Office to defend Scotland's interests and its environment. I hope that the current Secretary of State will not, like his predecessor, be more the Cabinet's man in Scotland than Scotland's man in the Cabinet.
If the Government fail to take either of the suggested routes to a solution, they will be sending a clear signal that, despite the green commitments from the Prime Minister's spin doctors this week, the Government's environment strategy will be no more than hot air, adding to the global warming crisis. We need more than words; we need urgent action.
I shall end with two thoughts from the period when SEPA was created. As I said, SEPA was widely welcomed by, among others, the editorial pages of Scotland's newspapers. The Herald editorial on 2 April 1996 warned that, if SEPA was to be effective, it
will have to have teeth, and know how to use them.
As things stand, SEPA's teeth have been blunted. That cannot be allowed to continue.
When the Minister's predecessor, the Earl of Lindsay, officially launched SEPA, he boasted:
SEPA will be Scotland's first national agency with the resources and expertise to tackle the distinctive needs of Scotland's environment".
I doubt whether the Minister could make that boast today, because, despite the good works and the great promise of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, it no longer has the resources to complement its undoubted expertise. It certainly does not have the resources to move into a more proactive role, which many would welcome.
I am sure that the Minister will be keen to kick off his ministerial career by being able at least to match the boasts of the Conservative party. I give him that opportunity today. I am not interested in apportioning past blame for the situation. What is needed is a resolution now of the problem. The Minister must meet the needs

and expectations of Scotland and act to save SEPA from a legal technicality that was unforeseen and yet will be unforgivably damaging to the effectiveness of environmental protection in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Chisholm): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) for raising the debate today. The issues that she has mentioned are an important matter of great public concern, and have been the subject of considerable media coverage recently. I am glad, therefore, of the opportunity to put the record straight.
It may be useful if I begin my response to the hon. Lady with a little background. Following the passage of the Environment Act 1995, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency was established in October that year. Labour Members supported the creation of a single pollution control body for Scotland.
On 1 April 1996, SEPA took over the responsibilities of a range of predecessor bodies. It inherited the water pollution control functions of the river purification authorities—that is, the seven mainland river purification boards and the three islands councils—and the waste regulation and certain air pollution functions previously delivered by the district and island councils. From the Scottish Office it acquired the functions of Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate and the hazardous waste inspectorate.
The other necessary piece of background information is section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. That section allows certain bodies to reclaim the VAT that they incur on the purchases attributable to their non-business activity, in addition to the VAT that they can recover in the normal way on their business purchases.
For Government and public bodies, including organisations such as SEPA, activities that they are required to carry out by law are generally regarded as non-business. Section 33 status therefore enables such bodies to reclaim tax associated with activities that they are required by law to carry out.
As the hon. Lady knows, SEPA's predecessor bodies had differing VAT status. The district and islands councils and the river purification boards were entitled to claim refunds of VAT, whereas the two Scottish Office inspectorates were not. The reason for this difference was that the former bodies had the right to precept on local taxation, but the others did not.
Why is the right to precept the determining factor? The answer lies in undertakings given when VAT was introduced. In 1972, the Government promised that VAT would not fall as a burden on local taxes. Section 33 of the 1994 Act is now the means by which that promise is delivered. It has been the policy of successive Governments that only bodies that have the power to precept on local taxation may be considered for new additions to section 33.
That brings us to the present day. SEPA is a non-departmental public body financed by grant in aid from central Government and by fees and charges. It has no right to precept on local taxation. It is therefore not eligible to claim refunds of VAT on its non-business activity. That is not in itself a disadvantage to SEPA,


as the Government ultimately determine the overall resources available to it to ensure that it can meet its obligations.
The hon. Lady referred to a meeting on 9 May between Scottish Office officials and SEPA. I do not recognise her account of that meeting. She claims that there has always been an assumption that VAT would be recoverable. Of course, we have inherited the previous Administration's distribution of resources, and I cannot speak for them. I understand, however, that SEPA's provision was intended to enable it fully to deliver its functions and to meet its obligations.
SEPA is facing financial constraints, but that is a fact of life for all public sector bodies, and private sector ones as well. My noble Friend Lord Sewel, who is the Minister responsible for the environment, has already met SEPA officials to discuss the agency's funding difficulties. We are at present considering with SEPA what is necessary to allow it to carry out its functions related to the protection of the Scottish environment.
The Secretary of State will provide SEPA with all the resources necessary for it to meet its statutory obligations, including the new ones to which the hon. Lady referred. In a normal year, SEPA's VAT liability would be about £1 million—not £2.7 million, as stated by the hon. Lady. That compares with its current budget of about £28 million. While that liability is clearly a pressure on the organisation, it is not as big a problem as some have claimed, and must be viewed in the context of SEPA's overall financial provision.
The hon. Lady contrasted that situation with the treatment of the Environment Agency in England. Although that agency delivers in England and Wales the functions performed by SEPA in Scotland, it has a wide range of other responsibilities that SEPA does not carry out. They include flood defence, fisheries, recreational use of water, and navigation. In particular, it is responsible for flood defence work, which is largely funded from drainage levies on English and Welsh local authorities. Those levies total more than £200 million per year, and contribute nearly 40 per cent. of the agency's income. Therefore, the agency is eligible to claim refunds of VAT.
The Government and SEPA attach the highest priority to SEPA's continuing to perform its core functions, which cover a wide range of activities. SEPA is responsible for

promoting the cleanliness of Scotland's fresh and tidal waters by regulating discharges to the water environment and for providing flood warning systems and advising on flood risk. It issues authorisations to operators of processes prescribed under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It is responsible for licensing waste management sites and waste carriers and brokers. The agency can take enforcement action against anyone who pollutes the environment illegally.
The continued delivery of those core functions, including the availability of emergency and out-of-hours cover, constitutes the day-to-day business of environment protection in Scotland. The Government are committed to maintaining that business.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister explain what he means by "out-of-hours cover"? He may be aware of the Hospitalfield situation in Arbroath. Residents live in an atrocious environment on weekends, but are unable to contact anyone in SEPA. An out-of-hours or weekend service is surely essential in those circumstances, but SEPA claims that it cannot finance such a service. How does that fit with the Minister's assertion that SEPA's inances are perfectly adequate?

Mr. Chisholm: Hospitalfield is an operational matter for SEPA. The Government are committed to providing adequate funding for SEPA's core functions. Beyond delivering those functions, SEPA must determine priorities among its other activities in light of the resources available to it. They include assessments of the general state of the environment, and appropriate research and development. They are desirable, rather than essential, activities, and progress with them is not allowed to undermine SEPA's core business.
I assure the House that the Government are committed to protecting the environment of Scotland. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has done much since it was established. In a very short time, it has pulled together the functions of 64 predecessor organisations and staff from many of those bodies. It has delivered effective environmental regulation from day one. It has published a state of the environment report and a draft national waste strategy. I congratulate the board and the staff on those achievements. We intend to build on that record of success.

Nirth Yorkshire Ambulance Trust

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I am grateful that my topic has been selected for debate this afternoon, as it is extremely important to the people of Scarborough and Whitby, the people of North Yorkshire and our near neighbours.
I congratulate the Minister of State for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), on her recent appointment, and I wish her well in her endeavours on behalf of my constituents. Unfortunately, we do not have a full complement of Members in the House at present—perhaps because the debate has been called early. I wrote to those hon. Members who have an interest in such matters advising them of the debate, and I look forward to seeing them here before I conclude.
On 14 November 1996, Channel 4 screened an edition of the "Dispatches" programme that made a series of allegations about the North Yorkshire ambulance trust's operational effectiveness and management style. The programme initiated much local concern in North Yorkshire, and featured heavily in the national media. Following those allegations, the regional health office set up an independent review panel, chaired by Mrs. Anne Galbraith, on 15 November 1996. The long-awaited report was finally published on 3 June 1997.
Shortly after the publication of the report, the chair of the trust, Mr. Murray Naylor—who is, incidentally, a newly elected Conservative county councillor for the Rillington division—resigned from his post. A fortnight before the report was published, the chief executive, Mr. Michael King, retired on the grounds of ill health, at the relatively young age of 37. I must point out that I began my parliamentary career at the relatively ancient age of 40, and the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), recently assumed his responsibilities almost at the age at which Mr. King has retired.
I am also led to believe that some questions remain unanswered regarding Mr. King's illness. That is a serious concern for me and for those in the ambulance service who do not know what Mr. King's problem is. Front-line staff drew certain allegations to my attention and to that of the "Dispatches" programme producers. Some of those who blew the whistle about concerns within the trust were disciplined, and several people were dismissed for breaching their contracts of employment. Subsequent industrial tribunals upheld the management's decisions. As a result of the report's findings, I believe that the management's staff dismissal process looks unsafe, and I urge the Minister to consider that matter.
We may contrast the management's treatment of its staff with the tolerance that it showed to the former chief executive, Mr. King, during his long period of ill health. Many people in public service in North Yorkshire are deeply puzzled about that obvious inconsistency in the treatment of staff at different ends of the trust hierarchy. I believe that the matter should be re-examined in light of the review panel's findings.
The Galbraith report raised several key points. The national health service executive, Northern and Yorkshire region, states in a press release of 3 June:
Performance standards were marginally over-stated but there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation of deliberate manipulation
of figsures. It continued:
The decision to procure a new command and control system, costing more than £650,000 was not fully tested against alternatives.
The panel, quite rightly, questioned the appropriateness of the technology in view of the size of the trust. The procurement, installation and commissioning of the system are heavily criticised in the report.
The Galbraith report also decided that the trust's ratio of operational ambulance staff to trainers is inadequate. Although the trust fell into significant arrears with its paramedic re-certification programme in 1996, the panel found that the situation has improved. Galbraith also found that the organisation's management style had adversely affected the trust's operational effectiveness, and that was severely criticised in the report.
The trust took some remedial action following the James Dean incident, which was a sad incident in which a teenager died, but the issue remains of the responsiveness of the service to accident calls. The panel believed that there were some lessons to be learned, and I shall deal with them shortly.
The key point, as the panel decided, was a failure to separate income generation calls—those that concerned assistance for the veterinary service and dentistry—from emergency calls, which is why the service exists so as to help us. There seems to have been some confusion in the control room about the priorities to be given to incoming calls, which led to severe operational efficiency defects. The panel found that the problem had been remedied by the trust by early June.
I feel that there are some essential national lessons to be learned from this sorry tale. I know that the community in North Yorkshire expects that locally and nationally our health service should be managed efficiently, and should be there to deliver within the highest standards of public service.
As a former railway manager, I have carefully studied the Galbraith report and its findings. I have mounting concern about the internal management structure and style that was pervasive over the period leading up to the report being delivered. That structure and style failed to deliver an honest team-working spirit. I see a failure to establish what I regard as a no-blame culture within the workplace. I am concerned especially that there seem to be unresolved issues. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider these, perhaps in a later response.
I shall now inform the House of the sad events that occurred on the afternoon of Saturday 7 June. They took place in front of me during a journey that I was making between my constituency and York, within the constituency of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who I see has now joined us in the Chamber. At about 3 pm, the radio news had just finished, and at that moment I could not really believe what I was seeing in front of me. I saw, about six vehicles ahead of my car, that a roof ladder had become detached from a pick-up truck and was lying almost horizontally across the opposite carriageway. It had the appearance of crop sprayer.
I saw a private car and a coach moving towards the ladder from the direction of York. The coach hit the ladder, and its windscreen was shattered. I pulled over and tried to help.
I discovered that the coach was occupied by a class of 12-year-olds from the Cavendish school, Hemel Hempstead. I am glad to report that no serious injuries resulted. I believe that that was due to the fact that all the children were wearing lap seatbelts, and because the driver was wearing sunglasses, which protected his eyes.
I made a 999 call on my mobile telephone at about six minutes past 3 o'clock. That was about four minutes after the accident had happened. The police attended within several minutes. I must commend them on their prompt action.
The problem, as I see it, was that the first ambulance arrived at about 25 minutes past 3, well beyond the standard response time that is expected. As I had studied the Galbraith report only a few days before the accident took place, and had been assured by subsequent press reports from the trust that major improvements had been made in meeting response times—I am on record locally in commending the work that has been done—I became concerned about response times. I feel that it is still a significant issue in north Yorkshire.
These events led me to call and write to Madam Speaker to ask for an Adjournment debate. I am grateful to her, because she must have thought that the matter deserved some attention.
I have some key questions for my hon. Friend the Minister. First, are the Government happy that the inquiry was wholly independent? As a test, I shall use an extract from a letter that was sent from my close and hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) to Mrs. Galbraith on 20 December 1996. I shall quote the paragraph about the independence of the inquiry. It reads:
You will be aware that I have expressed concern about whether your inquiry will be independent. I understand that the North Yorkshire Ambulance Service was involved in 'headhunting' members of the inquiry team and in setting your initial terms of reference. I regard this as unsatisfactory but will judge your report on its merits before deciding whether to ask the Public Accounts Committee to investigate the allegations about the service.
I would like feedback on that issue. I, too, am concerned that we may have to ask the Public Accounts Committee to investigate further.
In addition to that test, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister what measures the regional health executive officials are taking to ensure proper performance and adherence to corporate governance requirements for the future of the North Yorkshire ambulance trust, and, indeed, for the future of all national health service trusts. Has any performance recovery plan been established? I would like to know also whether that has been requested and whether such a plan will be published. Will the public of North Yorkshire be able to learn of the targets?
I wish to ascertain also whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be giving detailed and early consideration to the future occupancy of key positions within the trust. I should like to see a serious re-evaluation of the appointments process within a key public service that extends across the country. The findings of the Galbraith report suggest that that should happen.
There are key questions of accountability and accessibility to the community served within such an important public service. These factors should be taken into account if any future design is made for improving guidelines for appointments to health trusts.
Some published mechanism should be established that allows for positive feedback from public servants within a no-blame, no-bully culture. That would allow and encourage a real team-building process. It would allow also an honesty of approach, to ensure that we have the most effective services from health trusts.
I would like the Minister, if it is possible, to deal with the rumours that are now abroad in North Yorkshire and Humberside about the possible merger of the two ambulance trusts. These rumours are sapping staff morale and causing loss of staff confidence. I am talking of people who have been knocked from pillar to post by the events that led to the Galbraith inquiry.
I believe that the North Yorkshire ambulance service has an identity of its own. In spite of the sorry management regime investigated by Mrs. Galbraith and her team, the service has developed a strong relationship with the people of North Yorkshire. Those who work in the service are to be commended for the work they do.
I should like to think that the problems caused by ineffective management that ensued over several years from the birth of the trust, and which have been outlined so clearly by the Galbraith report, will not be taken as a basis for any merger of services, which I believe to be geographically unsustainable.
It would not be in the best interests of the people of Scarborough and Whitby, or of those of North Yorkshire or the national community, for us to be thinking about such a merger on the basis of the problems that I have outlined. I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend's response.

Mr. John Greenway: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn), for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate. These half-hour debates usually start on time. Given the six minutes that it takes to walk from Millbank to the Chamber, I was not able to be in my place when the debate began because of the early start.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, and on the measured way in which he raised the issue of the North Yorkshire ambulance service.
I had thought of attempting to secure a similar Adjournment debate, but I concluded that I would not do so, for reasons that I now declare. Mr. Murray Naylor, who was until recently the chairman of the trust, and who resigned as a result of the Galbraith report, is a personal friend. As the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) will know, he is now a Conservative council councillor, and is the former chairman of the Ryedale Conservative Association.
However, it is fair, from the point of view of balance, to place on record the fact that the criticism of Mr. Naylor in the Galbraith report was small. In relation to some of the other difficulties that the health service has encountered in recent years, this problem, important though it is, is by no means on the same scale.
In my view, nothing in the report justifies Mr. Naylor's resignation. However, in resigning from the trust, he took an honourable course, and acted with great speed and integrity. I can advise the House that he did so after much soul searching about what was best for the North Yorkshire ambulance service. He felt that, as the report contained criticism of him, the right, proper and honourable thing to do was to tender his resignation, and that he did.
The Galbraith report came about as a result of a "Dispatches" programme on Channel 4. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby made it clear that the report concluded that some of the most serious allegations in the programme were not justified. It is important that the House, the Minister and the people of North Yorkshire recognise that the serious allegation that response times had been deliberately manipulated was not found proven, although it was found that, in a marginal sense, they had been overestimated.
The allegation that defibrillators did not work and were not properly maintained has serious implications for the national picture. However, the Galbraith inquiry found that not to be the case, although the report implied that this is a national problem, and that defibrillator equipment should be upgraded across the ambulance service.
It was those two key allegations in the Channel 4 programme that most shocked the people of North Yorkshire, and gave rise to the greatest degree of public concern. Time does not allow an in-depth analysis of other aspects of the report, except to say that it acknowledges that the ambulance service has made substantial progress, and that considerable improvements have been made in the four years since the trust was established.
After the Channel 4 programme, I visited the two ambulance stations at Malton and Filey in my constituency. I had a completely open mind, and gave ambulance crews and staff the opportunity to say precisely what they thought: that is particularly important, given the allegations of bullying of members of staff by the former chief executive, Mr. King, who the report acknowledges had an extremely robust style of management. They told me that the trust had brought about improvements, but that issues in the report still concerned them. That is undoubtedly the case.
I conclude by making two points. First, I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby about the future of the North Yorkshire ambulance service. It concerns me greatly that people in the NHS executive and in the Yorkshire and Humberside regional office may seize on this report and these events and use them as an excuse to merge the North Yorkshire ambulance trust with another trust, such as Humberside or West Yorkshire, or to merge all three.
I think that I can speak for my colleagues in North Yorkshire—judging from what the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby said, Labour Members share my view—when I say that the case has not been made for such a merger. North Yorkshire is by far and away England's largest county. I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you represent a large rural area in Suffolk, but when one considers that the distance from the border with the North sea in my constituency and that of the hon. Gentleman to the most westerly part of North Yorkshire is greater than the distance from Southend to Bristol,

one can understand our concern that there would be serious logistical difficulties in forcing through a merger. There should be a proper public debate about this issue.
I do not believe that there is support for a merger in the York area. I know that it is difficult, because of his position, for the hon. Member for City of York to participate in the debate, but I am sure that he would agree with me that people in the York area, which we both represent, would be very concerned if, in spite of the problems that have been experienced, the ambulance headquarters at Skelton on the edge of York were to be closed and operations and decision making transferred to Hull or Leeds. That would be a seriously retrograde step.
The second point that I want to make is very much along the same lines. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred to an accident on the A64, and the difficulty of the response time. The problem is that there is no ambulance station between Malton and Scarborough or Filey. It takes me 38 minutes to drive from my office, which is half a mile from the Malton ambulance station, to the next ambulance station at Filey; and that is on a good day. On a Saturday in June, July or August, when the A64 is chock-full with traffic, it takes easily an hour to do that journey. The hon. Gentleman knows what the problem is, because he lives in Scarborough.
If we are to impose on the ambulance service the 19-minute national response requirement, some regard must be given to the problems of dealing with such a huge rural area. That is the message that I received from ambulance crews. They say to me, "Mr. Greenway, it is all very well people complaining that it took 35, 40 or 45 minutes, as in one of the incidents in the Channel 4 programme, but people should try driving some of these distances in their own cars."
I am not making a plea for another ambulance station, but I hope that the Minister will study this problem and the difficulty associated with covering the area with communications systems and radios. There are several fire stations and other police premises between those ambulance stations, but there is no ambulance station between Malton and Filey or Scarborough. That is a huge distance to cover, and there are other problems in similar parts of North Yorkshire.
When we consider the difficulties that the ambulance trust and the ambulance service in North Yorkshire have faced in recent months, we should recognise that, by and large, they do an extremely good job, and that the people of North Yorkshire have a high regard for them.

The Minister of State for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn), and I congratulate him on securing a debate on a matter of such importance to his constituents. I listened carefully to him, and to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). They expressed important concerns about the North Yorkshire ambulance service trust. My hon. Friend is right to pursue his concerns with great vigour on behalf of his constituents.
My hon. Friend outlined clearly the background to the independent review and the recent report. I should like to make it clear that, although the report was commissioned and the inquiry panel established under the previous


Administration, panel members were appointed jointly with the National Health Service Executive regional office.
When it first sat, the panel amended and extended the terms of reference initially suggested for it by the trust. It is, however, important for us to look forward. We should take account of the lessons that can be learned, both in north Yorkshire and by the ambulance service regionally and throughout the country, from what was a series of disturbing incidents. What matters is the allaying of public concern—which is great, following events such as the one that we have been discussing—and the rebuilding of public confidence.
As my hon. Friend said, the independent review panel was chaired by Anne Galbraith, chair of the Newcastle Royal Victoria Infirmary and Associated Hospitals NHS trust. It was formally appointed on 25 November last year, and undertook to investigate nine of the areas of concern that were identified by the "Dispatches" programme and in other charges.
There were allegations of deliberate manipulation of response times. There was a demand for justification of the trust's decision to purchase a new control and communications system. It was alleged that the trust was in arrears with its paramedic training and reassessment programme, owing to a failure to invest in proper training; that it had failed to replace its defibrillators because of a lack of investment, and that that might have caused defibrillators to fail; and that, owing to a lack of investment in radio infrastructure, the low level of radio coverage in parts of the operational area had caused ambulances to be delayed.
It was asked whether line management relationships had affected the trust's operational effectiveness, whether non-executive directors had been kept appropriately informed, and whether the trust's approach to income generation had affected its operational effectiveness. It was also asked whether the trust had committed expenditure to public relations at the expense of operational services, and—specifically in relation to the tragic case of James Dean—whether it had applied any of the lessons that it had learned in practice.
Submissions to the review were invited from staff and former staff of the trust, the trust board and external organisations and individuals, including Members of Parliament. The panel conducted what was described as a thorough investigation of the technical and managerial issues raised by its terms of reference, and sought from the outset to gather comprehensive information about the trust's performance.
Time was spent in discussion with a wide range of individuals and groups, and consultation was undertaken with both the trust board and union representatives. The report was published in full on 3 June 1997, just over six months after the screening of "Dispatches". Having looked at the programme of work, and following meetings, the panel set about its task with commendable urgency.
Let me now deal with the criticisms of the trust that were made in the report, and inform my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ryedale of the action being taken in response to those criticisms. The public, after all, have a right to expect problems that have been identified to be

resolved swiftly. The North Yorkshire ambulance service is now under a new management team, which is tackling the urgent need to improve performance.
Let me make it clear that I am here to report on the findings of the review panel, and on steps taken by the NHS executive in the light of those findings. It is for public opinion, articulated by local Members of Parliament, to judge whether enough has yet been done.
In the light of today's debate, and having listened carefully to what was said by my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman, I shall ask the regional office to prepare a set of clear performance targets that the ambulance trust will be expected to meet. I hope that those targets will be widely disseminated, as will the extent to which they are met, as part of the important process of rebuilding public trust and confidence in the service.
A number of criticisms were made of the trust's management. The hon. Member for Ryedale referred to what was described as the harsh, arbitrary and inflexible leadership style that had had an impact on the trust's operational effectiveness. I understand that the chief executive who was the source of that complaint has now retired on grounds of ill health—that was mentioned by my hon. Friend—and that the chairman has also resigned. Indeed, I acknowledged his resignation only a few days ago.
I am told that staff consultation arrangements have been overhauled by the new management team. A number of groups of staff have been organised to review the trust's policies on such matters as disciplinary and grievance procedures, and health and safety matters. The trust plans to introduce an "investors in people" award, which we hope will ensure the effective involvement of staff in the running of the service. Staff side representatives have publicly recorded their view that morale has improved, and that the new management team is working effectively with staff. I hope that that will translate rapidly into improved performance by the service.
Many criticisms were made, and the responses to them are clearly set out in the report—to which I refer hon. Members who are interested. The public will be concerned about, for instance, the trust's alleged failure to deal separately with income generation calls and emergency calls, fearing that that may have interfered with operational efficiency. I understand that the trust acted swiftly to separate those very different types of call immediately after the "Dispatches" programme, and that careful monitoring of them is now under way. I also understand that further training has been secured for paramedics, and that two additional instructor posts are being advertised to meet future training requirements.
Let me refer to one of the gravest allegations, relating to the collection of performance statistics on ambulance response times. The review panel found no evidence of systematic falsification of results, but the panel felt that access to computer records was insufficiently controlled, and left the trust open to allegations of manipulation of the data collected. Having read the report carefully, I can confirm that view. I am told that the trust has taken steps to address the panel's concern, including the monitoring of the use of the system on a continuing basis to ensure data integrity.
In many respects, the best judges of whether the service has learnt the lessons of the James Dean case are James Dean's family, and I hope that they will be kept in close


touch with the way in which what has been learned from his tragic death is being applied in practice. The trust now has a new acting chairman and a new acting chief executive. I assure my hon. Friend that developments in the trust will be kept under the closest scrutiny by the regional office, which will also be asked to establish the performance benchmarks to which I referred earlier.
Questions were raised about concern about merger proposals. I can confirm that no formal proposals have been received by me, or by the regional office. New appointments to the trust board will, of course, follow full Nolan procedures in relation to openness.
What matters now is rebuilding confidence, and applying the lessons learned from a bad episode to ambulance services throughout the country. The constituents of

my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ryedale deserve an ambulance service that truly meets the highest demands placed on ambulance services to respond to emergencies. I will ensure that the Government make every effort to make certain that that happens.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LEVER PARK BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 1 July.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Group Enterprises

Mr. Love: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in what ways her Department has been supporting co-operatives and other forms of group enterprise through overseas aid; and what new initiatives are planned. [3850]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we are actively encouraging the creation of co-operatives, especially to manage a communal resource, share risk, or increase the power of individuals in the market. We are seeking new opportunities to support the co-operative ideal, for example through micro-finance schemes. I recently met the president of the International Co-operative Alliance to discuss how we can learn from experience in other countries.

Mr. Love: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. I welcome the Government's support for the ethos of co-operation. Does my hon. Friend agree that co-operatives are people-centred organisations that are able to balance the need to make a profit with the social objectives of their members? If he does, will he take the opportunity to reverse the considerable decline in recent years of support for co-operatives by the previous Government? As part of that process, will he enter into dialogue with co-operative organisations both nationally and internationally to help him to achieve the Government's objectives for the third world?

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right. Co-ops balance profit-seeking with social goals. As I have said, we met the president of the ICA and I also plan to discuss development with the Co-operative college in Loughborough and with the Plunkett Foundation in Oxford. Co-ops represent a good middle way between centralised state control and free market idolatry, and we shall do all that we can to encourage them.

Mr. Rowe: Is the Minister aware of organisations, such as the Australian-based Maranatha group, which make small loans to small companies? Is he further aware that such loan-making companies have an extraordinary repayment record, which is sometimes as high as 85 or 90 per cent? Will he do everything in his power to encourage that kind of highly cost-effective assistance?

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his positive encouragement. It is not often that we get that from the Opposition. He gives a good example, and there is also the example of the Grameen bank in Bangladesh, which has had good repayment, especially by women who have been given small loans. That is exactly the kind of thing that we shall encourage, because it will encourage the development of the poorest of the poor.

World Bank

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had about the operations of the World bank. [3856]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Since 1 May, I have met Mr. James Wolfensohn twice and had useful discussions about how the bank can focus more effectively on poverty eradication.

Dr. Jones: My right hon. Friend has already made it clear that she intends that the elimination of poverty rather than political and economic considerations must be at the heart of our aid programme. I am sure that she realises that that can only be achieved wholly if the World bank has a similar shift in its priorities. I am glad to hear that my right hon. Friend discussed that with Mr. Wolfensohn. Did she also press him on the need for the World bank to be more accountable and transparent, particularly in relation to the publication of the voting records of member nations?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right. We want to get everyone in the world and all the major institutions to sign up to the recommended policy of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's assistance committee that world poverty should be halved by 2015. That is achievable if all the world's major institutions co-operate, and the World bank is the key to that. James Wolfensohn is clearly in favour of greater transparency and I favour the World bank's country plans being openly published in the country, so that everyone who lives there knows what the World bank's strategy is. Open publishing of voting records is a more complex and difficult question because it might stultify the debate. We need more discussion about whether open publishing would be helpful.

Dr. Fox: If the international financial institutions continue to drag their feet over the highly indebted poor countries initiative, will the Government make money available unilaterally to kick start the process?

Clare Short: As the hon. Gentleman knows and as we discussed during our previous Question Time, the British Government—his own and this one—have been firmly in the lead on the HIPC initiative in trying to achieve debt forgiveness, and he will also know that Britain has written off all its bilateral debt to 17 of the poorest countries in Africa. The problems are not with the World bank, but with the International Monetary Fund and with some of the member countries. We are doing everything in our power to apply all sorts of pressure and to mobilise public opinion to achieve much faster progress on the implementation of the HIPC initiative.

Tibet

Dr. Tonge: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement regarding United Kingdom aid to Tibet. [3858]

Mr. Foulkes: We believe that we can best assist the people of Tibet through small-scale projects that respond


directly to the needs of local communities. Since the financial year 1995–96, we have allocated about three quarters of a million pounds through non-governmental organisations to a variety of projects, both in Tibet and for Tibetans living in Sichuan and India.

Dr. Tonge: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure that he realises that, over recent years, a million people have died in Tibet and that 60 per cent. of its population are now Chinese. That is due to the actions of the Chinese Government, who have had a very repressive regime in Tibet since 1949. What steps does he intend to take to ensure that aid is not used unwisely by the Chinese occupiers of Tibet? While he is answering that question, perhaps he would like to extend his thoughts to the actions of the Indonesian Government in East Timor, where British aid is still going. They are denying the people of East Timor—

Madam Speaker: Order. One question at a time. The question relates to Tibet. The Minister will answer on Tibet.

Mr. Foulkes: If the hon. Lady wants to table another question on Indonesia, we would be happy to answer that as well.
Our policy on Tibet is also a matter of concern for the Foreign Office, but I assure the hon. Lady that the £750,000 to which I referred earlier goes through non-governmental organisations such as Save the Children Fund, directly to help poor people in Tibet. The Government are concerned about human rights in the whole of China, including Tibet, and we shall continue to raise our concerns directly with the Government of China, both bilaterally and in international forums.

Mr. Wilkinson: I welcome the amount of money dispersed through NGOs to Tibet, but will Her Majesty's Government address the problem of the non-co-operation of the People's Republic of China with regard to developmental aid from Governments, specifically allocated for Tibet? Is the Minister prepared to put pressure on the Chinese authorities to relax their attitude, which is viewed in the outside world as largely negative with regard to Tibet?

Mr. Foulkes: We certainly believe that any money that is allocated for Tibet must be spent in Tibet. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Pa Nam rural development project is being supported by the European Union. Through our membership of the EU' s Development Council, we shall be ensuring that that money is spent properly, for the purpose for which it was intended.

Mr. Stevenson: I recognise the importance of the project to which my hon. Friend has just referred, but I am sure that he will recognise the considerable controversy surrounding it. Will my hon. Friend ensure that, when efforts are made to direct aid to the benefit of the Tibetan people and local projects, some mechanism is established whereby the Tibetan people can be consulted on what is required in their areas?

Mr. Foulkes: We certainly believe that, in the Chinese provinces and Tibet, the Tibetan people should be consulted about the expenditure of aid money that is allocated by the EU and the UK.

Bilateral Aid

Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to increase the proportion of the aid budget spent on bilateral aid. [3859]

Clare Short: As the hon. Gentleman will know, or should know, the previous Government made an agreement that led to 40 per cent. of our expenditure being channelled through the EU. A further 15 per cent. of our expenditure meets our UN and World bank obligations.

Mr. Luff: I am sure that the right hon. Lady will be aware of the warm welcome across the House for the Prime Minister's statement yesterday about the new priority for aid to sub-Saharan Africa, but does she agree that her ability to reprioritise spending within her Department is limited by the high volume of multilateral aid? I accept the figures that she gave in her answer. Does she understand that any effort that she makes to repatriate responsibility for the aid programme from the EU to her Department will be widely welcome around the House?

Clare Short: It does not help to moan about what the previous Government did. Given that the commitment carries through to 1999, it is important that we improve the quality of the EU programme, which at the moment is patchy. Some of it is good and some of it much less good. A report of the development assistance committee of the OECD is quite critical. As part of our presidency of the EU, we have made it clear that improving the quality of EU performance and getting more collaboration between nation states and the EU rather than competition will improve the quality of our development strategy.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I recognise the distinction between aid and trade provision and tied aid under the bilateral programme, but can we have an assurance that ATP is fully protected?

Clare Short: I made it clear during our previous Question Time—I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present— that we are reviewing the aid and trade provision. There is much evidence that it is neither developmentally nor commercially beneficial. That review is under way, and we shall make an announcement when it is complete.

Mr. Goodlad: I add my personal congratulations and good wishes to the Secretary of State on her appointment.
Can the right hon. Lady confirm or deny reports that it is her intention to end the tying of any bilateral aid to the provision of British goods and services? What studies has she made of the likely effect of such a move on British jobs?

Clare Short: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and welcome him to the Opposition Front Bench to serve what is probably the most noble cause that one can serve in politics.
As I have said, we have already made it clear that we are reviewing the aid and trade provision. The Prime Minister's announcement at the Denver summit is part of a worldwide movement to untie aid, because the OECD and everyone else recommends that there should be a change, as the


present system is basically inefficient. The number of British jobs that may be affected is marginal, but I am sure that Conservative Members would not want to featherbed the inefficiency of British companies by a sort of backward-looking tying of minor parts of the aid programme, when all the evidence and research undertaken by my Department and the OECD shows that it encourages inefficiency and damages the developmental quality of aid projects.

Land Mines

Mr. Martin Bell: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will assess the advantages of promoting the development of new technologies for clearing land mines as a form of aid for those countries which need them. [3860]

Mr. Foulkes: I pay tribute to all that the hon. Gentleman has done to raise awareness on this issue. We support projects providing low-cost mechanical clearance and we are considering a number of new initiatives, from sophisticated multi-sensors to simple clearance tools.

Mr. Bell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue here is not party political or political but humanitarian, and that an honoured guest should be allowed to visit an all-party group of the House without being accused of having political motives?

Mr. Foulkes: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The issue is humanitarian, not party political. Indeed, some Conservative Members of both Houses have been involved in the all-party group on land mine eradication, and the royal family has previously been involved with humanitarian issues. Diana, Princess of Wales, has helped to raise the profile of the problem, and it is entirely regrettable that she has had to withdraw because of pressure from Conservative Members.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister agree that the support of prominent public figures, either inside or outside the Palace of Westminster, is as nothing compared to the need to establish international political will to deal with the problem of land mines? I congratulate the Government on joining the Ottawa initiative, but will the Minister say whether the problem of land mines will be put on the agenda on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to be held in Edinburgh? Would that not be a suitable forum in which to initiate further international action?

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, for his kind congratulations on our participation in the Ottawa process. We shall take an active part in the forthcoming meetings, and we hope that we can get an agreement that will introduce an effective international ban on land mines. As for CHOGM, I understand that the agenda is not yet finalised, but we shall take account of what has been suggested and feed it into the considerations.

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to encourage a more rapid clearance of land mines in the poorest countries of the world. [3861]

Dr. Starkey: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to encourage a more rapid clearance of land mines in the poorest countries of the world. [3863]

Clare Short: We are tackling the problem on several fronts—first, as has been said, by seeking an effective international ban on their use and secondly, by supporting the development of capacity in heavily mined countries to clear their own mines. Only that will give us the speed of clearance necessary because, at current rates of clearance, it would take the world 1,000 years to clear the mines already in place—and more are being laid as we speak. Our priorities are to save lives and to ensure resettlement and development for the poor in heavily mined countries.

Dr. Godman: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on signing the Ottawa initiative.
Has the role of the United Nations in international mine clearance operations been diminished by the funding crisis that is bedevilling that organisation? When President Mary Robinson demits office and takes up the post of High Commissioner for Human Rights, will she have a role to play in that scheme of things?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We all welcome the appointment of the President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, as Commissioner for Human Rights, although I am not sure whether she will have responsibility for land mine clearance in the UN system.
My hon. Friend is right to say that many forces have been trying to undermine the effectiveness of the UN. The view taken by the British Government was welcomed by everyone at the recent meeting of the UN from which I returned last night. Our position is strongly to support the UN process of reform, which will increase its effectiveness. Many countries in the UN greatly welcome the new responsible and creative British position.

Dr. Starkey: I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State on her initiatives, which are welcomed by most of my constituents in Milton Keynes. Given the enormous number of countries affected by the serious problem of indiscriminate land mines, what criteria will her Department use to identify the countries to be helped first?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As she probably knows, some 60 countries have been very badly disabled by land mines, which are wicked weapons. People are damaged by them not only during war, including civil war, but even when peace comes, because there can be no resettlement and land cannot be used. Adults looking for wood or children playing can still be badly damaged. We want to support worldwide movements for eradication.
I stress that we need technical co-operation to create the capacity for the countries concerned to clear their own mines. I visited Cambodia about six months ago and saw


widows and amputees clearing mines there. That provided them with a living and helped to heal the damage done to their country. We want to encourage that kind of work.

Fair Trade Products

Mrs. Heal: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to support fair trade products. [3862]

Clare Short: I believe that the growth of ethical movements among consumers, investors and producers is a beneficial force for change. My Department is working with the ethical movements with a view to agreeing international codes for ethical trading. It is clear that ethical business is good business in every sense

Mrs. Heal: There is growing concern among consumers in developed countries about the conditions of workers who produce agricultural and manufactured goods for export. Research by Christian Aid has shown some of the difficulties that many agricultural workers in developing countries face, including low pay, pesticide abuse, violence and the lack of trade union rights. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to introduce and monitor a code of conduct for workers in developing countries?

Clare Short: I share my hon. Friend's concern and support for the valuable work that Christian Aid has done. The response throughout the country has been magnificent. People were asked to tell their supermarkets that they wanted them to purchase ethically. All the major supermarkets are in talks about how to do so. That could make an enormous difference to the standards of employment for workers and to the prevalence of the abuse of pesticides, which damages our food and the health of the workers. My Department strongly supports all those movements. We are in favour of the monitoring of codes of conduct, and we want them picked up and entrenched internationally.

Mr. Blunt: Will the Secretary of State confirm that she understands that fair trade is often code for protectionism and that the fastest way to ensure that the poorest parts of the world have access to the wealth that the rest of the developed world enjoys is free trade? Does she under

Clare Short: What a sad comment. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman knows nothing of the fair trade movement that is influencing the citizens of this country, if not his party—which might explain the Conservatives' current position. Fair trade is about people wanting to consume goods that have been ethically produced in a free trading system. It is about consumers using their purchasing power to get goods that have been produced under fair employment conditions and without pesticides being used. Those movements are growing and strengthening throughout Britain. The hon. Gentleman is out of tune with the mood of the country.

Employee Share Ownership

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will encourage the growth of employee share ownership plans as a contribution to economic policy in developing countries. [3864]

Mr. Foulkes: We are already supporting employee share ownership plans in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and will certainly encourage their consideration in developing countries as one of the range of options available for the ownership of assets.

Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that developing countries and the ex-communist states are trying to develop a market economy without capital and without capitalists. As, in a sense, we are all capitalists now, do not employee share ownership schemes offer a third way between the excess of the plc and the nonsense of state control? Will he continue to encourage them as part of his Department's economic thinking?

Mr. Foulkes: I agree with most of what my hon. Friend said. He will know that the benefits of ESOPs include increased work effort from employee share holders, better communication between workers and managers and less conflictive decision making. It might be a good structure for the parliamentary Conservative party.

Development Projects (Private Sector)

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to encourage the private sector to become more involved with the support of development projects. [3865]

Clare Short: I want my Department to work in partnership with all those who can contribute to development and the eradication of poverty. That includes the private sector, of course. I shall be setting out my thinking in a speech at the Institute of Directors on 8 July and wish to encourage the private sector to work more closely with my Department, to encourage more investment in the world's poorest countries.

Mr. Sheerman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. She will know that, like so many Labour Members, I am very much in favour of a greater contribution from our revenues to development aid, but the private sector can play an important part in development, and where best practice exists it is very good indeed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will encourage more firms that trade with, and do well out of exports to, developing countries to become involved in local projects. I have seen that such projects are extremely effective in south America. I know that they are effective in some parts of Africa. I hope that my right hon. Friend will do everything that she can to stimulate that involvement and work on best practice.

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. In order to grow, the poorest countries need investment from the private sector. At present, private sector flows are concentrated in the 10 most developed of the under-developed countries. We must improve on that. The Commonwealth


Development Corporation, for which my Department provides support, does valuable work in that direction, but we are also keen to work with partner countries and with companies in Britain to develop the conditions to encourage more investment in the poorest countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.

Mr. Fabricant: Is the right hon. Lady aware of all the valuable work done by the private water companies in developing water projects in sub-Saharan Africa? What assessment has her Department made of the effect on that form of aid of the introduction of the iniquitous windfall tax by her Government?

Clare Short: As I said to one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends at the last International Development questions, these matters are too serious for cheap political points. I am not aware of any work done by private water companies in Africa.

Mr. Fabricant: What?

Clare Short: I am not especially aware of that work, but if they are doing it, that is good work. Some 25 million—

Mr. Fabricant: Read your brief.

Clare Short: Why does the hon. Gentleman not listen? This is not a political game but a serious matter that affects the lives of human beings.
Some 25 million people a year die as a result of water-borne illnesses. There is a movement for an international conference that is likely to set the world a target of bringing clean water and sanitation to everyone in the world within 10 years. Everyone will have to work at that, but private companies alone will not do it, I am afraid.

Mr. Dafis: Will the Minister agree to look into the multilateral agreement on investment currently being negotiated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development? Does she agree that it will involve a significant shift of power away from Governments—many of them democratic—to trans-national corporations and make it more difficult for those Governments to develop policies in relation to social and environmental objectives? Is not the agreement likely to be contrary to the spirit of sustainable development and Earth summit 2? Will the Government look into this and do something about it?

Clare Short: As the hon. Gentleman may know, I came back overnight from the Earth summit in New York. The matter was raised with me by some of the non-governmental organisations there. I promised to take advice on the matter and saw one of my officials this morning, who promised me a paper later today. I shall look into the matter. My Department is not the lead Department on that issue. I do not believe that the agreement is the apocalypse that has been suggested in some quarters, but I shall look into it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

UNESCO

Miss Anne Begg: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what consultations she has had on the renewal of United Kingdom membership of the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. [3866]

Clare Short: I met Mr. Mayor, UNESCO's director-general, in London on 2 June. I shall follow this up with a visit to UNESCO next Tuesday. I shall attend, along with United Kingdom staff, the raising of the Union Jack once again outside the UNESCO building.

Miss Begg: On what date shall we be rejoining UNESCO and, once we do so, what will Britain's priority be in that organisations?

Clare Short: Our renewed membership takes effect from 1 July, the day on which the Union flag will be rehoisted. I have already had talks with the director-general. Our additional funding in the first year will be spent on one of our overwhelming priorities—bringing primary education to all children in the world, especially girls. Educating girls is the most developmental thing that one can do. UNESCO will prioritise that work as part of its welcome of Britain back into the organisation.

Mr. Wells: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on Britain's return to UNESCO, but how will she compensate the bilateral aid budget for the £12 million that she will have to spend in that organisation for our membership?

Clare Short: It is actually £5 million this year. As I have said, that money will be spent on work that we absolutely support: getting all the children of the world into primary education is one of the most important developmental things that we will do. The money for this year will come out of the contingency reserve. The implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that any money that we spend in the World bank or on United Nations' work is not beneficial, but that is not so. We must ensure that that money is spent to serve our aim to eradicate poverty in the world.

Development Issues (Public Information)

Mr. Hope: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with non-governmental organisations on educating the public about development issues. [3867]

Clare Short: I am reviewing the Department's communications so that we can increase public understanding and support for our strategies for poverty elimination. I intend to consult widely on the forthcoming White Paper, which the House will debate on Tuesday.

Mr. Hope: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that the global youthwork advisory service is to be launched next week in the House of Commons? Does she agree that it is important to raise young people's


awareness of the globalised world and its effect on their lives, and of how their choices and behaviour affect the world around them?

Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend completely. When I visit schools and colleges I find that such global issues concern young people more than any other political issue. As I keep saying, the reality is that we could halve world poverty by 2015 if we all worked at it. We must get everyone committed to that aim and make people optimistic about what can be achieved. Young people can give the lead on that, and we want to work with them to ensure that they do.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Dennis Turner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 June. [3885]

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also met Margaret Gibney, the young schoolgirl from Belfast.

Mr. Turner: I was wondering whether my right hon. Friend has had an opportunity yet to study my Weights and Measures (Beer and Cider) Bill? It is an important consumer measure for millions of beer drinkers in Britain. I can advise my right hon. Friend that what beer drinkers want is a full pint of beer with the froth on top.

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend, as chairman of Bilston Springvale club, always gives good value for money. I thoroughly applaud his campaign to make sure that the British pint is a good, honest pint.

Mr. Hague: I agree with the Prime Minister about that.
When the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) says that he was threatened with expulsion from the Labour party if he campaigned against a Welsh Assembly in the forthcoming referendum and the Secretary of State of Wales denies that, which one is telling the truth?

The Prime Minister: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, and I again welcome him to the Dispatch Box, that no one has been threatened with expulsion. People are perfectly entitled to state their position, provided, of course, that they do so in accordance with the rules of the parliamentary party.

Mr. Hague: So let the whole House get it clear: when the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent says that he was told twice that he would be kicked out of the Labour party if he stood for beliefs, we have the Prime Minister's personal assurance that he was not telling the truth.

The Prime Minister: I can give my personal assurance that no such threat was made.

Mr. Hague: In that case, who authorised Mr. Huw Roberts—a special adviser at the Welsh Office—to tell local council officials that their relationship with the

Welsh Office would be jeopardised if their local Member of Parliament did not support the policy of the Labour party? Do not local council officials have a higher responsibility to the wider electorate, and not to the unity of the Labour party?

The Prime Minister: That is absolutely right. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have asked for an investigation into this matter, and I am told— [Interruption.] If hon. Members would just wait a minute. I am told that that allegation is untrue as well, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now withdraw it.

Mr. Hague: The whole House will hope that it is untrue and the whole House will look forward to seeing the result of the investigation in due course. Just so we have this absolutely clear, when the Secretary of State for Wales tells The Daily Telegraph that individuals in the Labour party must not flout the party election manifesto, but the Secretary of State for Scotland tells the House, as he did a few weeks ago, that any Member of Parliament has a right to speak his or her mind as he sees fit, which one is speaking for the Government?

The Prime Minister: I have just made it clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps I will make it clear again. One: Members of Parliament are perfectly entitled to speak their mind. Two: there is no truth in the allegation that pressure was put on councils or that they had been told that they could not have the resources or any of the rest of it. If that were the case, it would be quite wrong. It is not the case, and perhaps now the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the allegation.

Mr. Hague: Will the Prime Minister therefore—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order.

Mr. Hague: Will the Prime Minister therefore give us a cast-iron guarantee that he will come to the House with the result of that investigation? Does he not regard it as an extraordinary state of affairs that different Cabinet Ministers give conflicting views on this matter and that investigations into it have to be mounted? What will he do to stop the arrogant behaviour of his Government on these matters and to ensure that there is an honest and open debate?

The Prime Minister: Unfortunately, and I understand these problems, I think that the right hon. Gentleman prepared his last question before he heard the answer. I have just made it clear that I investigated the matter this morning. There is no truth in these allegations. People are perfectly entitled to speak their mind. They are entitled to do that and that has been made clear by everyone concerned. It is important that we now get on and debate the principles that underlie the devolution debate. I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he carries on with points like this, no wonder he has no Members of Parliament left in Wales or Scotland.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an effective partnership between


Government and industry is essential if we are to get our young people off the dole and into work? Can he assure the House that the business community is delivering practical support for the Government's welfare-to-work programme? [3886]

The Prime Minister: I can indeed confirm that that is the case. We are absolutely delighted at the response we have already received from the private sector in respect of the welfare-to-work plans. The fact that there are so many public companies that are prepared to come forward and make a commitment to taking young people who are unemployed off the dole and giving them proper skills and education, with the chance then to get into a decent job, is a very great tribute to the British sense of social responsibility and to our companies in particular.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister accept that there remains, I fear, some confusion as to whether the Government will permit the transfer of funds from one Department to another to solve the coming winter crisis in health and education? The Sunday newspapers, quoting a Government source in Denver, said that they would, but the BBC, quoting the Chancellor on Monday, said that they would not. Which is Government policy?

The Prime Minister: This is our continuing debate at Prime Minister's Question Time. As I have said on many occasions, the position is the same as it has always been. The overall control totals must be kept within; the departmental spending limits are there and for these two years will be kept within. As the Chancellor said, of course—as we said in our manifesto—if social security can be reduced, it will be possible to spend more money on education. As I said to the right hon. Gentleman last week, if, in theory, there were a great pot of money that could be used, that would be fine, but there is not; that is the problem. We have had to take those tough spending limits precisely because of the position that we have inherited.

Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister's respect is reciprocated, but the question remains and I fear that it remains unanswered. Will the departmental ceilings, such as that on the distribution of the contingency reserve, be allowed to increase?
Let me explain to the Prime Minister why that is so important. Waiting lists are getting longer again. The number of emergency operations that have been cancelled at the last minute is increasing again. The hospital trusts are £300 million, and more, in debt, and sinking further into debt at the rate of £1 million a day. If something is not done about that, there will be mayhem in the NHS this winter, and the longer it is left, the worse it will get.

Hon. Members: Oh.

The Prime Minister: I entirely understand the problems that there are in the health service and in our education service. I do not think that Conservative Members should be shouting about that; they created those problems. We must do the best we can within the overall limits of public finance, because of the enormous debt burden that we have inherited and the need to take tough action. We simply cannot avoid that, but within those limits we shall do what we can.

Mr. Mullin: Will the Prime Minister confirm that it remains his intention within the lifetime of this

Parliament to deprive hereditary peers of their voting rights; if it is his intention, does he agree that the Wild Animals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, recently introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) to ban hunting with hounds, provides us with a welcome opportunity to deal with two mediaeval relics at the same time—hereditary peers and fox hunters, on territory on which we have overwhelming public support?  [3887]

The Prime Minister: It is our intention to remove the voting rights from hereditary peers in the House of Lords, and there will also be a free vote on fox hunting.

Mr. Hogg: If I may revert to the question that was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), it is clear from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that it is not possible for both the Secretary of State for Wales and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) to be correct. Either one or the other is correct. Why should we support the version of the Secretary of State for Wales? Is not the proper way forward to cause the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman to come to the House to make a personal statement, so that we may judge for ourselves?

The Prime Minister: As I have tried to explain to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, when I read about these reports, correctly guessing that they might be raised at Question Time, I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about that, and I have given the assurance that I have given the House.

Dr. Lynne Jones: The latest results for educational achievement at key stage 2 in Birmingham schools show a clear correlation between poor results and a high turnover in school populations. That is something that has bothered me ever since the year I discovered that, in my primary school, on an outer-city estate in Birmingham, only one child— [3888]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that this is Question Time and we do not want a long preamble about her earlier life.

Dr. Jones: Only one child at year six had been in the school since the reception class. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the crusade to drive up standards in schools gives special attention to the needs of those schools in which the school population changes almost entirely over a three or four-year period, and to the causes of that problem?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the problems of schools when they have a large transient population. That is one of the issues that will be addressed in the education White Paper which will be published shortly. It is also important to realise that, in Birmingham, about 10,500 five, six and seven-year-olds are in classes of more than 30, thanks to what the previous Government did. Those are some of the issues that we shall address, and we shall address them urgently.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Prime Minister confirm or deny the report on the front page of The Scotsman that the Government are recasting the detail of the taxation


proposals for a Scottish Parliament? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, since the election, the Deputy Prime Minister has told us that the White Paper will be published after the referendum, the Prime Minister has told us that the devolution Bill will be published before the referendum, and the Prime Minister has also told us that sovereignty will reside in this place, not with the Scottish people? Now there is confusion over the tax-varying powers. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand why the people of Scotland are beginning to wonder whether his full enthusiasm and attention to detail are devoted to this subject?

The Prime Minister: First, the Minister of State has already denied those reports on the lunchtime news—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realises that. Secondly, there is absolutely no confusion about the devolution plans, and there is huge support for them in Scotland and elsewhere. That support would be increased if the hon. Gentleman's party finally came off the fence and supported them too.

Mr. Martyn Jones: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his magnificent speech on the environment in New York? Does he agree that human population pressures are a major factor in the degradation of the global environment, and that the way forward is to implement the action plan produced at the Cairo population development conference, at the heart of which was the idea that females' right to choose the size of their families is a most important feature in sustainable future growth? [3889]

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in the concern that he raises. We fully support the Cairo programme for action. Indeed, we spend about £70 million a year on support for family planning and other measures. It is tremendously important to the future of the developing world.

Mr. Spring: Does the right hon. Gentleman share the view that the provision of nursery education by local education authorities should be without discrimination? Is he aware, however, that that is not the case in Suffolk, where nursery education is provided under the umbrella of the Labour-controlled county council's anti-poverty programme? May I tell the Prime Minister of the increasing concern of parents in Suffolk, who find that nursery education there is based on damaging nostrums of social engineering issuing from members of his party? [3890]

The Prime Minister: I do not know about the situation to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but if he looks at the record of Labour and Conservative councils throughout the country, he will find that the record of Labour authorities on nursery education is far superior to that of Conservative authorities.

Ms Ward: What are the Government's views on the recent publicity surrounding the launch of alcoholic icepops, following the controversy of the alcopops drinks and their influence on under-age drinkers? What action do the Government propose to take against those products?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, a working party has been

established—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members find this a matter for mirth: many parents are very worried about it. It is important that we work with the manufacturers and others to deal with the problem. I can assure my hon. Friend that that is precisely what we will do—without, it appears, the support of the Conservative Opposition.

Mr. Burns: Will the Prime Minister tell the House when and, more important, how the Government plan to keep their pre-election pledge to help a group of disadvantaged pensioners who are having to use their savings below the £16,000 maximum to pay for their own residential care? That is because Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled Sefton council refuses to accept the will of the House and says that, until these pensioners' savings have fallen to £1,500, they will have to pay for themselves. [3891]

The Prime Minister: I really am surprised that a Conservative Member has the nerve to raise that matter. Many elderly people have difficulties with community care and paying nursing home costs precisely because of the problems left by the last Conservative Government. This Government are trying to deal with those problems.

Mr. Skinner: I just want to prove the theory that somebody on this side is allowed to speak his mind. Now that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has discovered a great big black hole in the country's finances arising out of the fiddles that the last Tory Government carried out, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, come next Wednesday, we shall have a great opportunity to find additional revenue to fill the black hole created by that lousy, rotten Government? We can then ensure that we have more money for the health service, for education and for doing many of the things that we need to do in order to continue to win power again.

The Prime Minister: The decisions on the Budget will have to await the Chancellor of the Exchequer next week, but 1 certainly agree with what my hon. Friend says about the mess left by the last Conservative Government. I do not know whether this worries him more than me, but I find myself increasingly in agreement with him on many issues.

Ministerial Visits

Mr. Baker: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit the Lewes constituency. [3892]

The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to visit that constituency, but I shall certainly do so when I can.

Mr. Baker: I am sorry that the Prime Minister does not plan to visit Lewes, but if he were to speak to my constituents he would find that the three priorities that have been identified are the same as those in Bolsover—investment in health, investment in education and more police on the beat. Can he help to solve a problem for my constituents, who want to know why the Government are committed to cutting tax for those at the top of our society by introducing a starting rate? Would it not be fairer and


provide more than £1 billion if he increased the top-rate tax to 50p in the pound for the I per cent. who did well under the Tory Government? That would release £ 1 billion for health, education and law and order. Is it more important for the Prime Minister to featherbed the top 1 per cent. than to provide decent public services for everybody else?

The Prime Minister: First, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not our policy to raise the top rate of tax, but the 10p starting rate of tax would help many low-income families. Many of those low-income families often face high marginal rates of tax—sometimes 80 or 90 per cent., and sometimes even over 100 per cent. As the top marginal tax rates have come down, we believe that it is right and just to try to reduce the marginal rates of tax at the bottom end. That is the reason for that.
On funding programmes, I hope that the Liberal Democrat party will review its opposition to the windfall tax, which is entirely fair and absolutely right, and could help many young people to find the jobs and education that they need.

Engagements

Mr. Thompson: As the Prime Minister basks in his great mandate for the Labour party, has he noticed the proportionally greater mandate received by the Unionist party in Northern Ireland, where we received 13 seats out of 18 and more than 50 per cent. of the votes? It is a mandate opposed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, opposed to the framework document and opposed to sitting down with IRA-Sinn Fein with guns on the table, under the table and outside the door. Does the Prime Minister respect that mandate, and will he acknowledge it? [3893]

The Prime Minister: Of course I acknowledge the Unionist party's mandate. After Prime Minister's questions, I shall make a statement on how we try to achieve a lasting political settlement in Northern Ireland. It is very difficult, and difficult decisions have to be taken there; but I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that, just as I respect the good faith with which he carries out his work, we are trying in good faith to ensure that we get the lasting political settlement that we want. I hope that we can do that on a basis that is satisfactory to his position as well as to everyone else's.

Mr. Hanson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong links between social disorder and vandalism, and high levels of subsequent crime in many of our neighbourhoods and estates? Does he agree that the need to tackle crime is extremely important, but that to do so we must pledge ourselves to zero tolerance of vandalism and social disorder on many of our estates? Will he give that pledge today to the House? [3894]

The Prime Minister: I can certainly give that pledge on both those elements.
First, it is essential that we provide hope and opportunity for young people who are unemployed, which is why the windfall tax and the welfare-to-work programme are so important. If we cannot achieve that aim in that way, those young people will simply be left where they are, without the hope and opportunity that they need.
Secondly, with that opportunity comes responsibility. The Crime and Disorder Bill which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is to introduce will contain measures that crack down on juvenile offending and anti-social behaviour. It is precisely the right balance of rights and duties which the overwhelming majority of people in this country want.

Mr. Rendel: Following his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), can the Prime Minister confirm that, if savings are made this year by one Department, they will be allocated to another Department, even if that means that the receiving Department's ceiling is thereby exceeded? [3895]

The Prime Minister: No. As I made clear to the right hon. Member for Yeovil, the overall control total and the departmental limits will stay. As the right hon. Gentleman noted, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in Denver that if, for example, we can get social security bills down, there can be greater investment in education. We do not take a ridiculous view on the matter, but it is important to keep the limits in place because of the enormous problems that we will inherit.

Mr. Fabian Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the estimated annual cost of prescription fraud recently uncovered by the Department of Health amounts to more than £100 million, equivalent to 14,500 heart bypass operations or 22,000 hip replacements? Will he ensure that there is speedy action to crack down on such fraud, in particular by introducing a criminal offence of evading payment?

The Prime Minister: I totally agree with what my hon. Friend says about prescription fraud. It is costing the national health service tens of millions of pounds every year. That is why we have taken action. The precise nature of the action and the sanctions that will be applied are being considered by my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary. If people defraud the system, they are committing a criminal offence, and the law should be properly applied. Although it is important that we make sure of the right provision in the health service, it is equally important that we bear down heavily on any attempt to defraud the system.

Mr. Lansley: Will the Prime Minister make a decision and say now that no pensioner who currently receives free prescriptions will be asked to pay for them by his Government? [3896]

The Prime Minister: I went through that matter last week with the Leader of the Opposition's predecessor. The review will be carried out. We are not getting into the business of ruling in or ruling out every single thing. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman wait for the outcome of the review, before attacking us. I suggest that he also bear in mind the fact that the party of charges in the health service is his party—[Interruption.] If the Opposition want a debate about it, 1 point out that that party removed free eye tests, put up dental charges and increased prescription charges 953 per cent. in real terms. We do not need lessons from the Conservative party.

Ms Oona King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow suffers the worst


problem of overcrowded housing in the country, with cases of 14 people living in two bedrooms? That represents a level of deprivation that many hon. Members on these green Benches would not imagine existed in Britain in 1997. Will my right hon. Friend outline the measures that the Government will take to alleviate that appalling and fundamental problem?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the problems that many people face in the inner cities. That is precisely why we have introduced programmes to tackle long-term unemployment and inner-city regeneration programmes—including the release of capital receipts and other measures that will help people to find work. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not think that this is a problem, but I assure them that it is. It should be the fundamental objective of any Government to try to alleviate poverty among the most disadvantaged in our

society. We are doing that through our programmes on education, unemployment and housing and through a range of other measures that will help those people.

Dr. Tonge: In view of recent press reports, which quote Government sources, about the inevitability of a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport and in view of the on-going public inquiry, which is costing many millions of pounds, will the Prime Minister tell us the Government's position regarding a fifth terminal? [3897]

The Prime Minister: The position is that we have always said that we will await the outcome of the inquiry—[Interruption.] That is not just our position; it was also the position adopted by the previous Government. It is really the only sensible thing to do. If an inquiry is established to determine whether planning consent should be given, it is only sensible that one should await the outcome of that inquiry before making a decision. That is not extraordinary; it is plain common sense.

Northern Ireland

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Madam Speaker, with permission, I shall make a statement about the Government's continuing search for peace and a political settlement in Northern Ireland.
In my speech in Belfast on 16 May, I set out the principles of the Government's approach: first, the primacy of the consent principle, to make it clear that any settlement must command the consent of both unionists and nationalists and cannot be imposed on Northern Ireland against the wishes of a majority of its people; secondly, the need for urgent progress in the talks and particularly the need for the key political issues to be addressed as soon as possible; thirdly, the absolute unacceptability of violence or the threat of violence in the democratic process; fourthly, the desirability of talks involving all the parties, including Sinn Fein, if, and only if, there is an unequivocal IRA ceasefire; and, fifthly, the need to move on rapidly without Sinn Fein if there is not.
I want, therefore, to move as rapidly as possible to an agreed political settlement. The situation in Northern Ireland means that delay is not acceptable. I also continue to believe that such a settlement must be one with which all the people of Northern Ireland can feel comfortable and to which they can give their allegiance. The outline of a settlement is clear. The key elements are devolution in Northern Ireland, including an Assembly elected and operating on a widely acceptable basis; and sensible cross-border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.
I believe that there is a wide measure of agreement on those two elements, although there may be disagreement about the details. New arrangements will also be needed between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, including formal constitutional acceptance on both sides of the principle of consent and a new, more broadly based Anglo-Irish Agreement. They represent the three strands of the negotiations.
Terrorism continues to haunt Northern Ireland. We were reminded of that again this morning, when only prompt RUC action averted another serious attack. Ten days ago, we saw the despicable murders by the IRA of RUC Constables John Graham and David Johnston. Five more young children are without fathers. The whole House will join me in condemning that pointless and cowardly crime. Those responsible deserve our contempt in a measure equal to the sympathy that we feel for the constables' families and colleagues. We shall do everything in our power to bring those responsible to justice.
However, this was worse than just another terrorist crime. The location and the timing of the murders, which occurred close to one of the most sensitive areas for marches, can be seen only as deliberately provocative. However, it was even worse than that—and I shall explain why. I announced in my Belfast speech that officials could meet Sinn Fein to ensure that there was no misunderstanding of our position and to hear Sinn Fein's response to my statement that the settlement train was leaving, with or without it. That initiative was widely welcomed, and two meetings were held.
Following the second meeting, in order to make our position absolutely clear and to remove any shred of justification for claiming that it was not, I authorised the

sending of an aide-memoire to Sinn Fein putting in writing the Government's position on the points where Sinn Fein had sought clarification. The aide-memoire was passed to Sinn Fein on Friday evening, 13 June, three days before the Lurgan murders. I have placed a copy in the Library.
The aide-memoire set out clearly and concisely the Government's position on confidence-building measures, decommissioning and how long we thought that the talks should last. It also repeated that Sinn Fein's entry into talks required an unequivocal ceasefire, and that a period of time would be needed to ensure that that was genuine and that words and deeds matched. In order to put at rest fears that the Government might seek to spin out that process, it added that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would come to a political judgment about Sinn Fein's qualification for entry in some six weeks.
Assuming that words and deeds were consistent with a genuine and unequivocal ceasefire, Sinn Fein would at that point be invited to join a plenary session of the talks. It would then need to make clear, as the other participants have done, its absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles. The aide-memoire represented a reasonable approach, which had the full support of the American and Irish Governments, although the text was entirely our own.
Then came the appalling murders in Lurgan. They caused revulsion and outrage not only in this country but across the world. That was clear to me in the United States, where President Clinton condemned the cold-blooded killings in exactly the same terms as I did. It was clear, too, in my discussions with the outgoing Taoiseach, Mr. Bruton.
The credibility gap that the IRA and Sinn Fein have to bridge is wider than ever after Lurgan. Whatever Sinn Fein now says or does, I am determined to move on. It is essential to make political progress rapidly. The preparation for substantive talks must quicken.
Last autumn, we—that is, the previous Government—and the Irish Government, building on discussions in the talks, began to develop a comprehensive set of proposals for the handling of decommissioning. Final agreement was reached on them earlier this week. The two Governments have today given those proposals to the independent chairman of the talks, Senator George Mitchell, for circulation to the parties involved in the talks, and will be commending those proposals to the other participants as a basis for agreement on this important and complex subject. Again, a copy has been put in the Library.
Briefly, we propose the establishment of an independent coimmission to make proposals for decommissioning and to monitor its implementation, and a committee of the plenary to deal with these issues, with a sub-committee specifically on decommissioning.
The two Governments are fully committed to the approach to decommissioning that is set out in the report of the international body. That recommended
an approach under which some decommissioning would take place during the negotiations.
The report foresaw mutual progress on decommissioning and substantive political issues leading to a progressive pattern of mounting trust and confidence. That is what the two Governments want to see.
Under our proposals, a plenary meeting should be convened every two months to enable all participants to review progress across the entire spectrum of the negotiations, including decommissioning, and to consider whether the necessary confidence is being maintained. All participants, including Sinn Fein, if it is there, will, of course, have already committed themselves to the Mitchell principles. They include not only the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and the renunciation of force, or the threat of force, but action to prevent so-called punishment killings and beatings.
A second sub-committee will deal with other confidence-building measures that are set out in the Mitchell report. There can be no question of trading guns for political concessions in all this. There will need to be genuine progress in both decommissioning and the political negotiations if the process is to be successful. All the parties in the talks will have to face their responsibilities.
If the proposals provide a basis for agreement, important preparatory work can take place over the summer. It will be crucial to put the machinery in place as soon as possible, in particular the independent commission. I appeal to all the parties to look at the proposals in a constructive spirit. I really do not believe that there is another way forward.
Agreement would at last clear the way for substantive talks to start in earnest. I want them to begin as quickly as possible. I am also determined that, so far as we can influence the process, the talks will move as fast as possible. I can announce for the first time a clear timetable. The substantive talks should start in early September at the latest. In my view, they should conclude by next May at the latest, when the legislative basis for the talks expires. That is an ambitious target, but I have no doubt that it is achievable if all concerned put their minds to it.
As I said at the beginning of my statement, there is broad agreement on the key elements of a settlement: devolved and fair government in Northern Ireland, sensible and significant north-south arrangements, and a revamped relationship between the two Governments. The outlines of a settlement are reasonably clear, even if many of the details will be fiercely fought over. Let us now get down to the substance without further ado or prevarication.
Let me also repeat, in case anyone still has a doubt, that any agreement will be put to a referendum of all the people of Northern Ireland, as well as to Parliament. So the triple lock is secure.
There is no time to waste. The situation on the ground in Northern Ireland is fragile. Everyone is conscious of the dangers of the forthcoming marching season, and no one wants to see a repetition of last year's dreadful events. On that, too, the Government are determined to act. As the North report said, the best way to balance the conflict of rights and responsibilities involved in disputed marches is through local accommodation.
The Government are absolutely committed to doing everything they can to encourage a local accommodation at Drumcree, as elsewhere, to take account of the legitimate concerns of all sides. Accordingly, the Secretary of State is today issuing invitations to discussions with the Orange order and the Garvaghy road residents at Hillsborough castle on Friday. Nobody will

be forced to talk face to face to those with whom they do not wish to talk, but my right hon. Friend will make a further determined effort to make progress. I appeal to all concerned to accept that invitation to talks. Accommodation need not be a dirty word where human lives may be at stake.
This morning I met the 12-year-old girl, Margaret Gibney, who wrote to me and to other public figures, urging us to commit ourselves to bringing about peace in Northern Ireland. I owe it to her, and this House and all who have influence and authority owe it to her, to put a stop to the killing and to put in place a lasting political settlement. She has enjoyed one year of peace in the whole of her life. When her children are born, I want every year of their lives to be a year of peace.
This process must get moving. The settlement train is leaving, with or without Sinn Fein. If it wants to join, it is absolutely clear what it has to do. I have dealt straight with members of Sinn Fein, and I expect straight dealing from them. We and the other parties will not wait around for them.
There are, of course, risks in the approach that we are taking. No lasting settlement can be arrived at without taking some risks. But I have no doubt that the measures that we have put in place are right. They provide the basis for a way forward and a settlement within a matter of months. That is what the people of Northern Ireland want, need and deserve.

Mr. William Hague: I wish the Prime Minister well in his endeavours to pursue the peace initiative so vigorously commenced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon(Mr.Major)The Opposition share his horror and condemnation of recent murders, including the two RUC officers in Lurgan. We also share his concern about the fragile situation on the ground in the Province.
I welcome in particular the continued improved appreciation in the United States of the real character of Sinn Fein-IRA. I also welcome the Prime Minister's efforts to find a credible and secure way through the decommissioning block. I welcome his assurance that, in informing Sinn Fein that in the event of an unequivocal IRA ceasefire it could gain entry to the talks in six weeks, he has made it clear that that would be dependent on the credibility of such a ceasefire as shown by both deeds and words.
There are four areas on which I seek further information or reassurance. First, will the Prime Minister confirm that he will proceed with simultaneous negotiations on all three strands as originally set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)? Secondly, can he confirm that there will be no question of substantive negotiations with Sinn Fein proceeding without early parallel decommissioning of illegal terrorist weapons? Thirdly, does he believe that there should be regular reviews within the talks process to ascertain progress, and the viability of continuing the process? Fourthly, can he confirm that progress can be made only by agreement within the talks, reached on the basis of sufficient consensus, and that he has no intention of seeking to impose solutions?
Finally, may I assure the Prime Minister that Conservative Members are anxious to maintain the previously successful bipartisan approach to these matters, provided that the Government's actions continue to be in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the statement, and particularly for expressing his desire to maintain the bipartisan relationship. It is difficult to do such things in politics, and he deserves great credit. I think that his predecessor would agree that the attempt to establish a bipartisan relationship under the previous Government helped the process. I am grateful to him for that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it was clear that any participation by Sinn Fein must be on the basis of a ceasefire that is credible in word and deed. Yes, that is absolutely correct. I can agree with the four points that he put to me. The timetable for the substantive negotiations on decommissioning will be discussed by the committee that will be established, but, as I emphasised when I quoted the words of Senator Mitchell, it is a process that occurs during the negotiations. As for the simultaneous negotiations on each of the various strands, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that they are proceeding apace at the same time.
I hope that we can make progress within the talks. I believe that it is possible to do so. I know that it requires an immense act of endeavour from all concerned, but I concur with the right hon. Gentleman that that is the only basis—it is certainly the only basis that we can see—on which we have a chance of moving the process forward. If it does not move forward, it will only move backwards; it will not stay as it is now.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Would it be helpful if I confirmed what I suspect the Prime Minister knows already—that Liberal Democrats will wish to preserve the cross-party onsensus, as we did with the previous Government?
I welcome the Prime Minister's statement. We believe that he is right to seek at this point to give more momentum to the resuscitation of the peace process on the basis of the Mitchell principles, which he has clearly done. We also believe that he will gain wide support for the idea that it is now time to make progress again, and that the negotiating train, as he put it, cannot wait indefinitely for Sinn Fein. It is "make up your mind" time for politicians and terrorists alike in Northern Ireland.
Will the Prime Minister confirm, however, that there is an open door for Sinn Fein on that train, provided that it subscribes to the Mitchell principles and has a durable ceasefire in place by that time? Will he also confirm that the best way in which Unionists in the House can represent the best interests of their constituents is to give a positive welcome to the Mitchell process and the Prime Minister's initiative, so that the two-year logjam in the peace process can end, and end soon?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, particularly about the negotiating train leaving. Sinn Fein knows what it must do: it is absolutely clear. Any ceasefire that is called must be unequivocal,

and its credibility must be there in word and deed. Sinn Fein knows that—it has known it all the way through—and there is no shred of justification for the retaining of its present position.
Everyone involved in the process now has a huge responsibility to take the opportunity to move it forward. As I said a moment ago, if it does not move forward, it will move backwards. One of the reasons why I thought it so important to try to act early is that the situation is fragile. In some areas, it is deteriorating on the ground. If we do not move the process forward now, I fear for the future.

Mr. David Trimble: The Prime Minister will recall agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) last week when, after the murder of two policemen in Lurgan in my constituency, he described Sinn Fein-IRA as irredeemable. Does he not agree that the attempt last night in Lurgan to murder members of the security forces and the thwarted ambush at Woodbourne RUC station in west Belfast this morning reinforce that description? Does he appreciate that most people will wonder why yet another last chance is being given to terrorists who have failed again and again to renounce violence?
Will the Prime Minister make it clear that an unequivocal ceasefire must be a genuinely permanent end to violence with no more social and economic terrorism and no more orchestrated civil disorder, and that the character of the ending of violence is much more important than any time period, however it might be expressed? Does he agree that the 17-month delay in implementing the Mitchell report proposal for a verification commission to oversee decommissioning of terrorist weapons is a serious reflection on both the British and Irish Governments, and that it reinforces the suspicion of many of us that there are elements within those Governments that do not want to see any actual decommissioning at all?
Does the Prime Minister agree that parallel decommissioning as suggested by Mitchell must mean decommissioning that begins with the talks, continues during the talks and is complete at the end of the talks? Does he not agree that, consequently, any timetable for talks must be matched by a timetable for decommissioning and that the paper that he is circulating is seriously deficient in such mechanisms and needs to be supplemented? Can we be assured that those deficiencies will be remedied before the summer recess, so that the target date in September is not postponed? It is not enough simply to put mechanisms in place: they must actually start to work.

The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that statement and pay tribute to his determination to try to move this process forward in what I know is a very difficult situation for him. I entirely agree that the essence of any ceasefire is that it is a genuine end to violence. It is the sincerity of it that is the most important thing—I totally accept that.
It is worth, when hon. Members can, re-reading the Mitchell six principles and understanding that they represent a pretty tough and clear statement not just that there should be an unequivocal end to violence, but that, during the course of the negotiations and talks, there


should be no threat of violence; that no one should be able to negotiate with the idea that, if the negotiations do not go the way that he wants, going back to violence is an option. That would be a false negotiation and it must not happen.
It is not just the bombings and the killings that we read about, but the punishment beatings, the thousand little examples of acts of mini-terrorism and violence that make life absolute hell for people in many communities. When one talks to a 12-year-old schoolgirl and finds that she is so aware of the problems and has lived with them all her life, one realises that there is a heavy responsibility on everyone to make sure that this situation ceases.
In respect of decommissioning, as I made clear, it must be during the negotiations. That is part of the whole process upon which Senator Mitchell based his report, and he made that quite clear, because it was the very issue that was debated and discussed before he came to that conclusion. Obviously, the committee will discuss the precise way in which that is done. It is now extremely important for everyone to realise that this is the moment of decision, when we can move the process forward and get the chance of a genuine lasting settlement, which is entirely consistent with the principle that the consent of the people in Northern Ireland is absolute and uppermost. We have the chance to push the process forward, and we cannot let it go.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will want to make it clear that there are aspects of this with which he is unhappy and on which he seeks change, but I thank him for at least being prepared to see that there is the possibility of trying to move the process forward.

Mr. John Hume: I place on record my deep appreciation of the priority that the Prime Minister has given to the problems of Northern Ireland since taking office. By so doing, he has strengthened enormously among people at grass-roots level the will and the wish for peace and, therefore, the pressure to bring about peace.
May I especially welcome the rational and reasonable steps that the Prime Minister has outlined in the aide-memoire to bring Sinn Fein into talks? The central step has to be a total and complete end to all violence, and I am asking that that happens because not only should there never be violence in our situation, but it is the will of the people of Ireland, north and south, that it stops immediately. Let it now stop immediately and let all parties, for the first time in our history, get together in the real task of reaching agreement that will provide lasting stability. If that is to happen in a totally peaceful atmosphere, all the better, but, if it is not, let the rest of us get together and work quickly and strongly with both Governments to reach that agreement, to put it to the people and to provide lasting peace and stability.

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that very much indeed. May I assure him of this? The attention that we have given to this is because we believe that the process is so important and the situation so serious. I agree with what he says about the total end to violence and I agree particularly when he says that, of course, we want these talks to be inclusive. That is the best way for it to happen, but it is now clear what needs to happen for a ceasefire—it is absolutely plain—and if that is not going to happen, the process cannot be held up any longer.

In that circumstance, we have all those people—the parties that are prepared to accept that, if we are to negotiate a lasting settlement, it should be done without the use of violence—getting together and moving the process forward. Those are the only two options that are now available to us.

Mr. Tony Benn: May I, as the last remaining member of the Cabinet that sent in the troops in 1969, after which more than 3,000 people died in Northern Ireland, warmly welcome the attention that the Prime Minister has given to this matter, the work done by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the active intervention of the President of the United States? My right hon. Friend will of course recall that, when the last ceasefire occurred, brought about by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), Albert Reynolds and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), there were no talks, and that talks and a ceasefire go together. My right hon. Friend is right in saying that a return to violence offers nothing for the future of Northern Ireland, but neither would any reversion to the policies followed by a succession of British Governments, who were also unable to resolve the problem.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is important that the violence is brought to an end. Of course, if it is important to do that, it is also important that, with or without Sinn Fein, we move the process forward so that we can get a lasting political settlement, and that will include devolution to Northern Ireland that allows this to be done on a basis that is acceptable to all traditions. That is the chance that is now there to be taken. I hope that we can take it. I agree with my right hon. Friend entirely that the history of this has been one of tragedy all the way through, and we have the responsibility now to try to end it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Prime Minister referred to what he said when he was in Northern Ireland. May I remind him that he said:
I am prepared to allow officials to meet Sinn Fein, provided events on the ground, here and elsewhere, do not make that impossible.
This is not about negotiating the terms of a ceasefire. We simply want to explain our position and to assess whether the republican movement genuinely is ready to give up violence and commit itself to politics alone.
Can the Prime Minister explain to the people of Northern Ireland, who believed him, as I did, the proposition that these officials would not be talking about a ceasefire or how it could be brought about? Can he explain how two of the matters that Sinn Fein said it was determined to negotiate and talk about—first, the time that would elapse between a ceasefire being declared and its entry into the talks and, secondly, that no obstacle would be placed in the way of its entry into the talks after that had been decided, if it declared its ceasefire—have now been yielded to Sinn Fein?
Number one is six weeks. How, in six weeks, can the Prime Minister guarantee that the declaration of a ceasefire by IRA-Sinn Fein—which, not very long ago, shot a mother in the back because she was dressed in a police uniform in the city that the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party represents in the House, and murdered the two constables in Lurgan, and moreover,


was engaged in setting up other attacks on police in the last few hours—is something on which we can depend, bearing it in mind that the Canary Wharf bombing was planned when President Clinton was in Northern Ireland and when the IRA was pledging itself to peace? It was planned and was found out—

Madam Speaker: Order. I understand that this is a very serious subject, but the hon. Gentleman appears to be making a speech and I have a House full of Members seeking to ask important questions. I hope that hon. Members will ask the Prime Minister questions so that we can have brisk and informative exchanges.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to put one final question, and it is a very simple one. If Sinn Fein is to get into the talks under these proposals, it will do so without giving up one weapon or one ounce of Semtex.

The Prime Minister: First, in relation to the talks that officials had with Sinn Fein, the time is secondary to whether there is a genuine ceasefire, and often that has to be a judgment that is made. The position that we outlined is not the position that Sinn Fein wanted. Likewise, in relation to decommissioning, the talks about whether there could be an agreement on decommissioning, at least between the British and Irish Governments, have been going on since last autumn. It is a process that is very much based on the outline of an agreement then.
I agree that the killings are appalling. Of course they are. One had only to see on television the pictures of the funerals of the two RUC people killed. It is unbelievable; it is an offence against the very meaning of humanity that those crimes occurred. But what we are trying to do is to prevent such things happening, and we are trying to do so in a way consistent with basic principles. The basic principles are, first, that no change should be made to the way in which Northern Ireland is governed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland; and secondly, that, if we can reach agreement in the talks that happen, it is put to a referendum of the people in Northern Ireland. So there will be ample opportunity for people to say whether the settlement is fair or unfair.
However, one always comes back to the situation that there are only two ways of resolving this—violence or political and democratic debate. We want to resolve it by non-violent democratic debate. In order to achieve that, we have done everything we can. Whether Sinn Fein is part of the process now is up to it. As President Clinton said, the ball is in its court. 1 want the process to move forward, because I fear what will happen if it does not.

Mr. Peter Brooke: If the Government in this context use categorical words such as "last", "final" and "ultimate", can the Prime Minister give an assurance that those words will mean exactly what they say, as nothing is more dangerous in these matters than the impression being abroad that further, better and alternative particulars might be on offer?

The Prime Minister: I agree—that is exactly right—which is why I have said very simply that it is a matter now for Sinn Fein to determine what its future will be in

this situation. We have set out the basis upon which anybody can participate in the talks, which is that there must be a ceasefire that is unequivocal, clear in word and deed. In other words, it must be clear that any persons sitting down to talk are sitting down to talk without the threat of going back to the gun if they do not get their own way. That is clear. The basic principles of that, which have been set out over a long period, are also clear.
The huge change that has happened—the change that happened under the former Prime Minister—is that we have a situation now where all the main parties in the Republic of Ireland agree that this is the right way forward. The main party of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland agrees that this is the way forward. In those circumstances, there cannot be any shred of justification for people saying that there is any other way. We will not yield on that at all.

Kate Hoey: May I thank the Prime Minister for his continued personal support for peace in a part of the United Kingdom, which is a very beautiful Province indeed? Does he remember that, during the last ceasefire, the number of punishment beatings by paramilitaries increased? Does he agree that the quality of any ceasefire has to be measured not only by the length of time, but on whether paramilitary punishment beatings finish?

The Prime Minister: I agree, and that is where the Mitchell principles are an important part of the process. Any party that has come into the talks will have come in on the basis of agreeing with the Mitchell principles, and one is specifically related to punishment beatings. Those beatings in any part of the community are an outrage. It is so important to make sure that the ceasefire is genuine, and we need to eradicate the culture of resolving issues by violence rather than through the rule of law and due process. In the end, that is the only guarantee of the rights of the citizen.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that, if Sinn Fein is admitted to the talks, it will say that it has no weapons to decommission and that it is a political party with a mandate? Does he further appreciate that, with the time scale reduced to September until May, to some eight months, and without a firm determination that the first weapons will be handed over the day that it is admitted, Sinn Fein will string out any discussions about decommissioning over that period and go through the whole gamut of political discussions on the political track without handing over a single gun? Once it has come out the other end with its armoury intact and its active service units ready for action, we shall be back to square one. It will examine the democratic process, and if that does not deliver what it wants, it will resort to the methods that have traditionally been the only way in which it can fulfil its objectives.

The Prime Minister: It is important that we have the time scale for the talks in order to get an agreement, because that is the only way to concentrate people's minds on it. As for Sinn Fein stringing out the process, the review built into the decommissioning arrangements that we have put forward is designed precisely to prevent that. In respect of Sinn Fein going back to violence if it does


not get what it wants, in the end what is important is to do the best we can to make sure that the process is carried through.
We have made it absolutely clear that the ceasefire must be genuine and unequivocal. If there is any attempt or threat to revert to the use of violence in the course of the talks, the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that, in the report of Senator Mitchell and of the international body, it is made clear that, in those circumstances, any party that reverts to violence cannot remain in the talks. That will be the case.
The alternative is to let the present situation drift and continue, and I cannot do that. I have looked at it with the best judgment I can. In such a situation, one always worries that one's judgments are wrong, because they are so difficult to make and the calls are so fine. It is difficult, but I have given it the best shot that I can. If we do not try to do something that is consistent with principle but which gives us the chance at least of moving the process forward, all we do is engage in the ritual of violence and more violence, condemnation and more condemnation—and the whole of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom is fed up with that.

Mr. Clive Soley: May I commend the Prime Minister's clarity and consistency on the issue, and welcome the work done by the Secretary of State and her team? One of the most important parts of his statement concerned the close working relationship between the British and Irish Governments. Is it not a fact that, when the British and Irish Governments work closely together, the men of violence, whether unionist or republican, are marginalised, but when the British and Irish Governments are driven apart, those people gain in strength? It is therefore vital that my right hon. Friend does as he says he intends—and I am sure that he will—by building on that relationship and developing it.

The Prime Minister: Of course it is important that we work with the Irish Government, although that must always be on the basis of the principles that we have set out.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: While I welcome and support the Prime Minister's central points, I seek reassurance on one. Is he really sure that the decommissioning that he proposes is in parallel? Do not his proposals allow substantive talks to start before there is any agreement on any decommissioning proposals, let alone agreement by an independent commission and the two Governments? Is there not a danger that the proposals give significant ground to the IRA's demands for the postponement of decommissioning for as long as possible?

The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his general welcome. The purpose of what Senator Mitchell put forward was that decommissioning should happen during the negotiations, which is not what Sinn Fein sought. The details of how the new committee will work, together with other aspects, will be arranged over the summer. I should like to get on with that as quickly as possible. If that can happen, we shall be able to make a start all the sooner on the process.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not clear from the Prime Minister's statement that the IRA has run

out of excuses for not stopping its terrorist campaign? In view of the often unjustified criticism that this country receives abroad about what is happening in Northern Ireland, not least from the United States, would it not be useful to try to get those countries and Governments to understand what my right hon. Friend said today and the efforts that are being made and have been made previously to get peace in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I welcome the honesty and forthrightness with which he has expressed his views on these issues over a number of years. It is essential that we build support in every part of the world for our position. When I was in the United States, I noticed a different attitude, even among elements of the media and opinion in Congress and the Senate that had previously been prepared to be sometimes sympathetic and often extremely naive towards the activities of Sinn Fein and the IRA. That has changed, because people can see that the British Government are trying to do what we can. There is a growing centre ground that stretches across the communities in Northern Ireland, consisting of people who say that, if Sinn Fein is prepared to play by the rules, it can have its place in the talks, but if it is not, we have to move on without it.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Prime Minister has made a persuasive, powerful and compelling statement to the House this afternoon. I pray most sincerely that his proposals will succeed, but I think that he would expect me to ask this: what happens if Sinn Fein-IRA, the callous killers and terrorists, is not prepared to join the peace process or to agree to what I hope will be a peace settlement? What fallback position does he have to contain and—I put this directly to him—to take out those who are seeking to govern by the bomb, the bullet and punishment?

The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his broad welcome for the proposals. If Sinn Fein and the IRA do not agree to be part of the process, the rule of law will continue to be applied to them. We shall look at every means we can to ensure that that is the case. If those who are exercising violence are not prepared to give it up, it is important that they are brought to justice. Within the rule of law, we shall do all that we can to ensure that that is the case. That is why I said earlier that we shall do everything we can to pursue those responsible for the Lurgan killings. We shall be doing the same for those responsible for punishment beatings. If Sinn Fein cannot be part of the process because it decides that it will not, people will see it exposed and they will understand that we owe it to the citizens of Northern Ireland to give them the same rule of law there that we have elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I wish my right hon. Friend every success with this initiative. Does he agree that it is essential for the British and Irish Governments to work closely together to further the peace process? Will he tell the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and other critics of the initiative that the idea that decommissioning should be in parallel with talks rather than a precondition for talks is not exactly original? It was first proposed by Senator Mitchell's


commission almost 18 months ago. If it had been accepted by the then Tory Government, the peace settlement train might have been closer to its destination.

The Prime Minister: I hope that all the parties understand the importance of agreeing to the principles that were set out by Senator Mitchell—not merely the Mitchell principles as such, but what he said in relation to decommissioning, that is, that it should happen during negotiations. That is important for everyone to accept. I hope that people will, because that is the right basis on which decommissioning can proceed.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does the Prime Minister accept that the IRA still relies on violence as the core and overriding element of its strategy, as manifested when it brought the ceasefire to a conclusion at Canary Wharf, when it responded to the aide-memoire of the Prime Minister last week and this morning when it tried as a prelude to this statement to kill policemen going into Woodbourne police station? Can he assure me that decommissioning is not in his terms a euphemism intended to dilute the word "disarmament" and that he and the Irish Government sincerely mean what they say in the first sentence of the statement that he will release to the parties this evening—
The two Governments are resolutely committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations"?
Will he assure me that he understands "parallel" to mean exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), my party leader, requested it to mean this afternoon? Will the Prime Minister implore the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, if he is sincere about what he said in the House this afternoon, to interface with other democrats in Northern Ireland, come back into the forum and try to make progress, as he gives the House the impression that he wants to do?

The Prime Minister: As I made clear, decommissioning has to be something that happens during the negotiations. As for what has been said by ourselves and the Irish Government, yes, both of us hold to the position set out in that agreement. It is important that we manage to make progress on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the SDLP, has also shown by what he has said today considerable courage in wanting to move the process forward and saying that, if Sinn Fein is not prepared to abide by the same rules as everyone else, he is prepared to work with others to ensure that the process is carried forward. That is the only hope.
The hon. Gentleman says that violence is still relied on by the IRA. That is right. There is no doubt about that. That is precisely why we have to reach a situation either in which we move on the process without the men of violence, or in which a clear and unequivocal ceasefire is called and we move the process on inclusive of everyone. One way or the other, the process now has to move forward.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: May I commend the two Governments on finally agreeing a position on what is one of the single most important issues in Northern Irish political life? May I also commend the Prime Minister for placing the question of decommissioning where it should be—at the heart of the Mitchell recommendations? The Prime Minister knows that some of us have sat for one year dealing with the problem, so may I ask him to tell the House that that is a firm position by the two Governments and that it will not be amendable within the talks process? Will he assure us that we shall not have to spend another month, two months, three months or six months dealing with the interminable amendments and procedural devices that have bedevilled the issue?

The Prime Minister: What is important is that we use what is there as the basis for moving the process on. I am happy to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work that he has done to try make progress. It must be deeply frustrating for all concerned to be sitting there unable to make substantive progress. It is doubly frustrating, because there is essential agreement on the elements of any eventual agreement. Those elements are, first, devolution to a Northern Ireland body that is credible and has support across the political process and, secondly, some form of north-south co-operation. Those are precisely the details that serious-minded politicians should be able to discuss. The whole purpose of what we are doing is to ensure that we get on to the substance and away from the points of procedure.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We will now move on to other business.

BILL PRESENTED

INTERNET (DISSEMINATION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY)

Mrs. Ann Winterton presented a Bill to amend the law on the use of the Internet for the dissemination of child pornography; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 29].

Opposition Day

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

London Underground

Madam Speaker: I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Sir Norman Fowler: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the belated recognition by the Government that the future operation of, and investment in, London Underground can best be carried out by privately-owned companies; and urges the Government to avoid dogma and pursue with vigour ways to maximise private investment in the Underground whilst preserving safeguards for passengers.
I will be brief, because the time for the debate has, necessarily, been severely truncated.
The aim of both the Opposition debates is to get some clarity about the Government's position on two important areas of policy. Before I discuss London Underground, I should say that the first time that I spoke from the Opposition Front Bench on transport was 21 years ago. When various commentators urged my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to make up his shadow Cabinet by jumping a generation, I am not sure that they exactly had me in mind. As one unkind commentator has said, it is rather like Alex Ferguson recalling Nobby Stiles. One thing that does slightly improve my morale is that, as a regular traveller on the underground, I have at least so far been spared the ultimate indignity of anyone getting up to offer me his seat.
There is one clear advantage in my position—I can remember the days when I was Secretary of State for Transport. Then, my consistent opponents were the then hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), now Secretary of State for Health, and, above all, the then hon. Member for Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East—now the right hon. Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the Deputy Prime Minister.
I do not recall that the cause of private investment was uppermost in their minds then. Indeed, I remember how the Deputy Prime Minister opposed the Transport Act 1981, which attracted private investment to the British Transport Docks Board and various subsidiaries of British Rail. So strong was the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to my plans to attract private investment in transport that he concluded his speech with the words:
It should be made clear to all who seek to buy shares in these companies that they will not benefit from their action. As soon as the Labour Opposition are returned to power, they will take the quickest means possible to regain control of these sectors".— [Official Report, 13 January 1981; Vol. 996, c. 932.]

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Hear, hear.

Sir Norman Fowler: I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman, who is probably about the only man on the Government Benches these days who agrees with those words.

Mr. Livingstone: There are some others.

Sir Norman Fowler: I will be delighted to hear whether the Secretary of State for Transport or the Minister are as enthusiastic. We will await developments.
My view on transport policy has always been that the essential test—the acid test—should be what is in the best interests of the transport user or customer. The London underground is a very good system; it is capable of becoming an excellent system, and that must be the whole aim of policy. We all know one of the problems it faces: over the past five years, there has been £3 billion of public investment in the London Underground system, but, even so, there is a backlog of investment of around £1.2 billion.
No one but a hopeless party bigot believes that the problems of investment have come about in the past 15 years. We only have to look at the evidence given by London Transport to the Select Committee on Transport to understand that that is not true. That evidence shows the picture since 1960—not only the excellent record of the last Conservative Government, but how investment recovered from the capital spending cuts of the last Labour Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, that is one part of the Government's case, as stated in their amendment. They are in a peculiarly weak position to lecture anyone on capital investment, given Labour's record in power on capital investment in health, transport and almost any other area.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am deeply grateful to the Minister, who has so much chutzpah I wonder how he manages to get the words out. Would he like to read the evidence that London Underground gave the Select Committee a little bit more carefully? He might find that the evidence made it very clear that London Underground had spelt out to the Conservative Government exactly what damage was being done, but had been faced with consistent and quite swingeing cuts.

Sir Norman Fowler: I am grateful for the elevation the hon. Lady has given me, but I am not yet the Minister. However, if she reads the report of the Select Committee on Transport, which I have here, she will see clearly set out the pattern of investment since 1960. She will see clearly how that investment rose during the last period of Conservative Government; she will also see clearly her own party's performance during its last period of power, and, indeed, the period before that. She remembers as well as I do the capital cuts that Labour made. My point is that the Labour Government are in a peculiarly bad position to lecture anyone on capital investment, in the underground or anywhere else.
No one doubts that there is a need for new investment—there is no question about that—and neither does anyone doubt that the present system of public funding will not produce the goods. That is the lesson of the past 20, 30 or 40 years.
No one can seriously complain that the Conservative party has failed to make its policy clear. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), to whom I pay tribute for his work as Secretary of State for Transport, set out in February three options for the privatisation of the underground. Those options included the sale of London Underground as a single business, or the establishment of a structure similar to the national railways model, with a track authority owning the network and operators running trains on individual lines.
In addition, my right hon. Friend gave 10 commitments to passengers and staff, including commitments to through ticketing, safety, concessionary fares and control on fares


generally. Above all, he gave a commitment to investment and to ploughing the proceeds of privatisation back into the underground system. That was a clear statement, and it is there for all to see.
Labour rejected that plan, and, in his response to my right hon. Friend's statement, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), now the Minister for Employment and Disability Rights, quoted—not once, but three times—what he called a "leaked letter" from my right hon. Friend.
Throughout the election campaign, Labour maintained that hostility to my right hon. Friend's plans. Imagine, then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the surprise of Labour supporters everywhere when they opened their newspapers on 16 June to find that what appeared to be another U-turn was being conducted. The Guardian, which even Ministers will concede is not exactly a high Tory newspaper, led with the headline:
Prescott plans to sell the Tube. Options go well beyond Manifesto commitment.
That report and other reports said that among the options being considered by the Government was the option to split the underground into two companies—one responsible for stations and track and the other running the trains. That option would be remarkably similar to that chosen for the privatisation of the railways—universally condemned, as I understand it, by Labour spokesmen.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: That is not true.

Sir Norman Fowler: Well, we shall find out. I am grateful for the help of the hon. Gentleman—I call him my hon. Friend. We shall see whether Ministers confirm that.
According to the report, another option would be a public-private joint venture for the whole of the underground business, and a further option would be the taking on by companies of individual lines or groups of lines, running track, stations and trains.
The draft letter in which all those options were set out—and which has evidently been seen not only by The Guardian, but by a range of newspapers—described the timing of the decision process as "urgent." It added, in terms which are becoming sadly typical of the Government, that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions would
brief selected journalists who are likely to report this story in a positive light.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
Regardless of our opinion about anything else, we do not believe that that is the way to make policy or to make announcements. Such announcements should be made on the Floor of the House of Commons, not to selected friendly journalists. That is basic; it is entirely non-negotiable. I hope that the Minister will say this afternoon that that is his policy—and, moreover, that that is his Department's policy.
This afternoon, the public need to know what is happening. What are the Government up to? What are their plans for the London underground? Above all, what specific options for the future of the London underground are the Government examining?
We have seen this whole process before, in the air traffic control saga. In October 1996, when talking about National Air Traffic Services, the then Labour transport spokesman,

the right hon. Member for Oxford, East, declared that Labour was totally opposed to privatisation. He said:
Labour will do everything we can to block this sell off. Our air is not for sale.
That was in October 1996.
By April 1997, according to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), now President of the Board of Trade, the policy had become:
We have always said that we would look at these issues on their merit.
A few days later, no less a figure than the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), now the Prime Minister, said that it was to be the subject of—you have guessed it, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a review, which is characteristic of the Government. It is, of course, entirely a coincidence that the right hon. Member for Oxford, East, the then shadow Transport Minister, now pursues his ministerial career in the Department for Education and Employment.
We want to be told on the Floor of the House the Government's policy on London Underground. We want to know that, because the London underground is, by any measure, a vital service for millions of people in the capital and millions of people who come to this city. If we are to make practical sense of persuading people out of their cars in London, it is crucial that London Underground works well.

Mr. Livingstone: I am glad that the Opposition spokesman wants the London underground to work well. When I was leader of the GLC and led a deputation to see the Minister responsible for transport at the time—the right hon. Gentleman himself—and asked him to allow the GLC to give London Transport enough funds to tackle the backlog of work and build the Jubilee line, why did the right hon. Gentleman say that no Government funds would be forthcoming? Indeed, he barred the GLC from using its own rates income to restore the fabric of the tube.

Sir Norman Fowler: I think that the hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. I can think of no worse advocate for the London underground than he was at the time he came to see me. Given his record of spending money, it would have been a brave Government who gave him any. I respect and understand the hon. Gentleman's views, however.
I believe that the opportunity now exists to take a radical step forward, to improve the service and to move away from the inadequate system of public finance and public control. There is scarcely a commentator or observer who believes that the system is working well or that it cannot be improved. I believe, further, that Conservatives are entitled to say that, when in government, we successfully showed how the policy of privatisation could benefit transport: the ports and docks, freight, the railways, British Airways. No one wants to change those services back—unless the Government are about to undergo a complete change of heart.

Sir Robert Smith: The right hon. Gentleman did not touch on the success or otherwise of bus privatisation and deregulation. Does he really feel that it was a success?

Sir Norman Fowler: Yes, it was. The coach deregulation which I carried out was also a great success,


although opposed by the Liberal party. In fact, the Liberals have an even worse record than the Labour party of opposing most of these advances in transport.

Mr. Mackinlay: To this list of want-to-knows, I should like to add one more. The fare-paying public received repeated assurances from the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and from Steve Norris to the effect that the network card and similar concessions would be safeguarded following privatisation.
However, the right hon. Gentleman will have seen that 430,000 people who use the concession on the railways and the underground will face a 50 per cent. increase in fares as a result of franchising and privatisation. The railcard will be able to be used in fewer places; the intention is to kill off the concession altogether. That will increase congestion on the roads, and hit the poorest hardest. It will also diminish the revenue of London Underground.

Sir Norman Fowler: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. My right hon. Friend's statement about the underground clearly listed 10 commitments. One concerned concessionary fares, another was about fares more generally. I think I am right in saying that such a commitment had never been made by any Government before. The commitment was that, in the coming years, fares would not rise faster than the retail prices index.
The privatisations that we carried out have been highly successful. They have been to the advantage of the staff and companies concerned; most of all, they have been to the advantage of the public. If Labour Members do not believe that, why do they continue to pursue the policy? Labour has done a U-turn, and no longer is there any chance that they will reverse the privatisation policies that we pursued when in office. They know, in short, that we were right.
Privatisation has certainly had the effect of liberating transport companies, whether big or small, from the necessary restraints of the Treasury. That is clear and right, and is undoubtedly one of the advantages of privatisation.
It is important to understand, however, that privatisation is not simply a financial device; it is also about achieving better and more responsive management. One of its great advantages is that it gives freedom to management, allowing them to manage without for ever being second-guessed, and allowing them the opportunity to develop the business. That is what a transport undertaking is all about, and it is what businesses are all about.
There is no joy for a transport undertaking of whatever size to have Ministers and civil servants peering over its shoulders telling it what to do. That was the badge of the 1970s and the years leading up to them. That was the position that, step by step, the Conservative Government successfully reformed.
I said that I would be brief, for the obvious reason that this debate has been truncated. London Underground is the last major transport undertaking still constrained in that old-fashioned way. The challenge for the Government is to take radical action to reform the whole structure of London Underground for the benefit of the travelling public. Sadly, the vacillations of the past few weeks give the Opposition no confidence that that will be the final outcome.

The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
regrets the substantial investment backlog in the London Underground which the Government has inherited; welcomes the Government's rejection of the wholesale privatisation of the London Underground, as proposed by the previous Government; and applauds the Government's swift action on options for public-private partnerships to improve the Underground, safeguard its commitment to the public interest and guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers.
I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has taken this chance to debate the future of the London Underground. It is brave of him. I welcome the chance to debate the issue, and to take this early opportunity to affirm that an improved service by London Underground is a high priority for the new Labour Government.
We set out our policy for London Underground clearly in our manifesto, which said:
The Conservative plan for the wholesale privatisation of London Underground is not the answer. It would be a poor deal for passenger and taxpayer alike. Yet again, public assets would be sold off at an under-valued rate. Much-needed investment would be delayed. The core public transport responsibilities of the Underground would be threatened. Labour plans a new public-private partnership to improve the Underground, safeguard its commitment to the public interest and guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers.
We stand by that. Nothing that we have done or said since is inconsistent with that manifesto commitment. It will continue to be the framework within which our policy develops.
Let us have a bit of history—[Interruption.] I mean history—not the version of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, which did not even carry credibility with Conservative Back Benchers. The London underground has suffered from decades of under-investment. That is widely accepted, and the results are seen and experienced regularly by millions of Londoners and visitors to the capital. The underlying problem has been the level and uncertainty of funding under the previous Government, who delayed the investment needed to improve the network. Their record shows that they had no genuine commitment to the underground network. They increased or reduced funding as a matter of political expediency.
I shall not go back over 18 years of Tory rule; I shall go back just 10 years. The 1987 autumn statement left Government funding for the core network at its lowest level since the Conservatives came to power in 1979. It took the tragic King's Cross fire of November 1987 to produce a re-think of the Tory Government's attitude to London Underground. The Fennell report into the disaster was followed by a separate Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. In the face of that evidence, the Government could not deny the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's conclusion that
deficiencies in the levels of service are the result of chronic under-investment in both new capacity and the replacement and renewal of existing assets".
In response, the Government increased funding in the 1991 autumn statement, before the general election, but cut it substantially in 1992, after the general election. There was then a small increase in core funding in the 1993 autumn statement, followed by a succession of reductions in successive spending rounds. As a result,


investment in the core underground has not been sufficient to remove the underground's backlog. The current investment backlog in the core network is more than £1 billion. According to London Transport's figures, which take into account the previous Government's public spending plans, the investment backlog in three or four years will reach £1.5 billion.
The House will be aware of the problems that London Underground has been experiencing with the Jubilee line extension project, which have resulted in cost overruns of over £300 million. London Underground is responsible for managing the project, but it has had to do so within a budget set by the previous Government. Given the overspends that almost always occur on such major projects, we are entitled to ask whether the contingency which the previous Government allowed in the original budget for the project was adequate.
The effect of those cost overruns is a reduction of more than £300 million in the amount available for investment on the core network. Each pound of overspend on the Jubilee line extension is a pound less for much needed renewals of track, signalling, stations, escalators and structures on the existing network. London Underground's management has advised us that a cut of that magnitude in investment in the core network will, in a few years, inevitably mean even slower journey times and even more disruptions.
During last year's spending round, the Conservatives knew both that existing levels of funding were already below the levels that London Underground said it needed, and that there were substantial Jubilee line cost overruns. What was their response? A cut in funding for the core network of £373 million for the two years, starting next April. There was no transport case for those cuts. They were utterly indefensible.
Against that background of consistent under-investment, a backlog of over £1 billion and further planned cuts of almost £400 million, the Conservatives announced that, if they won the general election, there would be a wholesale privatisation of the underground.
We have only to look at the situation that we have inherited on the national railway network to know what that would have meant. On the railways, taxpayers were robbed, as assets were sold off at knock-down prices. The network has been fragmented, and services have been threatened. That must not be the future for the London underground.
The truth is that we have inherited a wholly unsatisfactory situation with regard to London Underground. I and my colleagues are being bombarded with letters from irate tube users complaining to us about the problems that we inherited from the previous Administration.
We are determined to address the underground's investment needs, so that it can play its full part in a properly integrated public transport network for the capital. Our aim is to secure an affordable, reliable, clean and modern network. Despite the best efforts of its management and workers, the underground's quality of service is below that which passengers can reasonably expect. That also affects the prosperity of London as a city.
However, we cannot simply tax and spend to sort out London Underground's problems. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has therefore asked officials to examine a wide range of options to see which can deliver the world-class underground system that we all want. We have ruled out the Conservatives' plan for the wholesale privatisation of the network, but all other options will be considered.
I am happy to provide the House with details about the review of options that we are undertaking, but I stress that we are at a very early stage in the policy-making process. When we have a preferred option to announce, we shall do so, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall announce it to the House of Commons. However, it is only sensible that we should first study all options, apart from wholesale privatisation, in a calm, considered way.

Mr. Eric Forth: The right hon. Gentleman said that he had ruled out privatisation because it would take too long to resolve the problems that he perceives with the network. Will he now announce the timetable for his deliberations, and assure the House that the Government will provide rapid and effective solutions?

Dr. Strang: I shall come to that point. It is not just a question of time: we reject the wholesale privatisation of London Underground because it would be a re-run of what has occurred with other privatisations. Assets would be sold off at disgraceful knock-down prices. We cannot produce solutions overnight.

Mr. Harry Cohen: My right hon. Friend is right to point to the Conservative Government's legacy to London Underground. I have also seen correspondence from London Underground bosses concerning the Jubilee line overspend, which could affect services and investment in the existing network. My right hon. Friend is correct to establish a proper review of all future investment in London Underground. Will he consider also the specific problem caused by the Jubilee line overspend and its effect on the existing network? Will he contemplate short-term solutions to that problem?

Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend is right: we must address that problem. A crisis is looming on the underground. The Jubilee line cost over-run is so great that it is damaging the basic investment that is required in the fabric of the network.
As I have said, we cannot produce solutions overnight to problems that the Conservatives failed to solve in 18 years in government—indeed, they made the situation worse. We shall appoint financial advisers to help us assess the options. We hope that they will be able to provide valuable advice about potential options. I confirm also that the review of options will be taken forward as quickly as is reasonably practicable. The review will also draw on the views and the expertise of London Transport.
Options for the future of the underground will be advanced in parallel with the work that we are doing on the integrated transport policy White Paper, which will be published next year. We expect the financial advisers' options to be on Ministers' desks within three or four months. In the longer term, an integrated transport policy for London will be the responsibility of the Greater


London authority. We shall publish a Green Paper on that authority next month, so that Londoners can have their say. Whatever the future holds for London Underground, the review of options will take full account of our proposals for the Greater London authority and its transport responsibilities.
Whatever options the Government may take up in order to secure greater investment in the underground, I make it clear that our overriding priority will be passenger safety. I believe that London Underground's management give the safety of passengers and staff the highest priority. That is absolutely right. As a result, the underground has had an enviable safety record in recent years.
Whatever happens to London Underground in future, it is vital that safety continues to be of paramount importance and is not compromised in any way. This is a very important issue in our review of options, and we shall ensure that the Health and Safety Executive and Her Majesty's railway inspectorate are fully involved. I pay tribute to London Underground staff, who do a very good job in trying circumstances.

Sir Norman Fowler: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on to another subject, will he set out the options under consideration? He keeps talking about them, but he will not tell us what they are. May we assume that the options published in The Guardian and in other newspapers are among those that he and the Government are considering? Is he considering the option that companies be responsible for the track and, conceivably, that other companies should run the trains on different services?

Dr. Strang: The Government have ruled out the option of wholesale privatization—I make that absolutely clear. However, we believe that the private finance initiative option in relation to "Power", for example, has the potential for success. There is also the option of many more private finance initiatives. We have not ruled out the option of a private equity stake in the capital of the underground, but that would be on terms very different from those proposed under the Conservatives with their privatisation measures.
Yes, there is a range of options, and we expect our financial advisers to come up with options that perhaps we had not even contemplated. That is why we are paying them, and we are paying them a good deal less than the Conservative Government paid their advisers, because we shall be using them for only a few months.

Sir Norman Fowler: rose—

Dr. Strang: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but for the last time in this debate. As he has said, many hon. Members wish to speak in a short debate.

Sir Norman Fowler: I intervene to help the debate.
Will the Minister confirm that all the options that were set out in the leaked draft letter from the Department of Transport are being considered and are on the table?

Dr. Strang: Frankly, I do not know anything about the leaked document that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. I think that The Guardian is an excellent newspaper, but the truth is that there is a range of options, as well as other options that have never been put on paper.
We, the Labour Government, have not been in power for eight weeks, while the Conservative Governments had 18 years. I say to the Conservatives: just hold your horses. If our record at the end of this Parliament is anything like the record of our predecessors, we shall have failed. That can be said for sure.
The fact that we are having to consider public-private partnership options for the future of the underground system is no reflection on the staff, but is due to consistent under-investment in the core network—which we are determined to address—during the terms of office of Conservative Governments.
The Government's approach to the underground is in clear contrast to that of the Conservative party. We are determined to modernise the tube, for the benefit of the people and industry in London and beyond. We are acting now to secure the necessary investment.
The Conservatives, led by dogma, threatened the people of London with their wholesale privatisation plans. Public assets were to be sold off at bargain-basement prices, much-needed investment was to be delayed, and the core public responsibilities of the underground were to be threatened.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Strang: No, I shall not give way again.
On 1 May, the Conservatives' dogmatic wholesale privatisation was given a resounding thumbs down by the people of London.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield no doubt came to the House with the idea of embarrassing the Government over recent disclosures in the media about our plans for London Underground. We have nothing to be embarrassed about. We are trying to find a practical solution to a problem that we inherited from him and others. We are not taking an ideological approach. Instead, we are being open-minded in a search for the best option. We are being entirely consistent with our manifesto commitment.
The London Underground carries as many passengers each year as the entire national rail network. It is the oldest underground railway in the world, and it is still vital both to London's economy and to the millions of people who live and work in London. But we are not getting the full potential from such an enormous national asset. The Government are determined to realise that potential through sensible public-private partnerships, not an ideologically driven wholesale privatisation.
Improving London Underground, modernising the tube and raising this public service is a London priority, but for the new Labour Government it is more than that; it is a UK priority. If London is to be a world-class capital city, it needs a modern and efficient transport system. The new Labour Government are determined to achieve that. It is for that reason that I urge the House to support the amendment and to vote against the motion.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me as the first London Member to speak in the debate.
As one enters St Stephen's entrance to the Palace, on the right-hand wall there is a map of my constituency, which was donated in 1932 by the underground railways, though not in their later stylistic cartography. I have never had a prior opportunity to thank them for it, and I take the opportunity now. As a passenger, I pay tribute to the management and staff of the London underground.
This debate is being held on behalf of all Londoners, and it offers a rare, medium-term opportunity for genuine unity among London Members of Parliament, despite the Minister's speech. I speak as a current denizen of the District and Circle lines and a veteran of the Central and Northern lines. Londoners deserve more from the underground than they receive.
What is needed is well known, and the 750,000 people who work daily in my constituency know what we must achieve if we are to preserve London's competitiveness, quite apart from improving our quality of life. Several years ago, the City corporation funded a pulling together of research into London's transport needs, and London First has followed up that research.
I hope that there is agreement on funding and investment needs. We know what the deficit was 10 years ago, and we know that four sevenths of that deficit have been paid in the past decade, partly through central Government funding and partly through the profitability of the system. Three sevenths of that deficit remain, however, and the unpredictability and oscillation—in this I am critical of the previous Government—of decisions on the funding of investment in the underground has made the removal of the deficit more difficult. The House will know that current desiderata, some of which have been alluded to today, have had to be deferred this year.
I hope that it will not be a matter of controversy if I say that a Greater London council mark 2 will not be a solution, given that the deficit was built up during the GLC mark 1 under both parties. Any GLC would still leave the underground subject to Treasury control. I also hope that it will not be a matter of controversy if I say that the deficit relates to capital investment, which will in turn ease the pressure on fares through improved facilities. The money should not be used for reducing fares in the first instance.
I recognise that the benefits of some of the investment will be invisible to the general public, although constituents in Pimlico will be grateful if inaudibility could be added. Anything that the Minister who replies to the debate can say about the problem of the Pimlico noise will be very welcome.
I hope that there is agreement between hon. Members on both sides of the House on many of these matters. God moves in a mysterious way, and we may be at a crux. Privatisation, as proposed by the Opposition, and private-public arrangements, as proposed by the Government, may offer a sufficient meeting of minds to solve the problem of funding in the interests of all Londoners, although I acknowledge that the Government's amendment is discouraging in that respect.
I take comfort from earlier developments. I am not sure whether the Government's espousal of Conservative policies is matched by an understanding of Conservative principles under which the past informs the future, but the circumstances of the formation of the London passenger transport board encourage me.
In the 1920s, underground railways investment had been heavily funded through the trade facilities legislation, the provisions of which included Treasury guarantees. When Labour came to power in 1929, with the grandfather of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelison) as Minister of Transport, a whole cornucopia of paradoxes developed. Herbert Morrison's plans for the London passenger transport board specifically excluded representatives of organised labour from sitting on it. In that era, trade unions played a smaller part in Labour transport policy than they do today.
Just as paradoxically, London county council, which was then under Conservative control, resisted the idea of a board, on the ground that there were no places on it for local authorities. When the Labour Government fell in 1931, it was assumed that the Bill would fall with it, but it was carried forward under the National Government. In the 1920s, Herbert Morrison had said before taking office:
In the direction of his undertakings, Lord Ashfield"—
who was the chairman—
had incorporated a considerable degree of public spirit for a capitalist concern. From the narrow point of view of Labour politics, I could almost have wished it were otherwise, for in all the disputations about London passenger transport policy this fact had made it harder to fight the combine.
In that context, it is worth remarking that, for all the good that flowed from the London passenger transport board, some of that attributed to it had occurred while the underground was still in the private sector. I refer to Charles Holden' s design for 55 Broadway, and, perhaps even more relevant, his distinguished design for Arnos Grove station. Morden station also dates from as early as 1926. Much of the credit for that distinction must go to Frank Pick, Lord Ashfield's managing director, who belonged to both the public and the private eras and whose personal shyness was matched by a private cultural hinterland that enriched London Underground through its style.
Let me quote a passage from a speech by Lord Ashfield that was quoted in the House of Lords by Lord Banbury in opposing the Bill. I hope that I shall be allowed to quote verbatim from the dead. He said:
In recent years, the suburbs have tended to become self-contained. The standard of shops has been improved, and luxurious cinemas have been built, so that there is not the same need or incentive to go to the centre of London for shopping or entertainment. Then the motor car has grown to be an important feature, and there are now well over 200,000 private cars registered in the London traffic area. They carry not only the family, but also neighbours and friends, and therefore withdraw more people from the public means of conveyance than at first sight would seem possible. The parking places and garages in the centre of London are filled with these cars. The theatre traffic, which at one time was carried upon the railways and omnibuses, has now largely passed to the private car.
In the context of present transport policy in London, it is worth quoting further the comment made on that speech by Lord Banbury of Southam. He said:
How can this public Board alter that? These are factors which remain."—[Official Report, House of Lords, I March 1933; Vol. 86, c. 936.]
The historians of London Transport said of that intervention that it
was one of the most sensible observations made by any contributor in the whole long course of the detailed, lively and sometimes acrimonious debate that culminated, for the time being, in the establishment of the London Passenger Transport Board.


That whole collaborative narrative encourages me to think that we can achieve something similar today. Not for nothing is "underground" one of those rare words which, although not palindromes, feature three opening letters that are the same as the last three. That seems a good omen for the two sides of the House, which approach the subject from opposite directions.
I have one "footnote" question to ask the Minister. Why, in the Government's view, does signaling—which is critical to underground developments—lag behind so many other analogous technologies, to our combined disadvantage? That is a non-partisan question, but, obviously, an industrial one.
Finally, an index that sustains me in my confidence in a sensible and prompt resolution of London Underground's investment shortfall—and the problems of the underground will not be solved unless that shortfall is dealt with—is the knowledge that the attention to environmental quality that Frank Pick initiated in the 1920s and 1930s has been matched in current developments by the commissioning of Sir Norman Foster and Richard MacCormack to design stations on the Jubilee line. I hope that my confidence that London Members of Parliament in all parties will make common cause on behalf of the underground and its passengers is not misplaced.

Ms Margaret Hodge: We are debating the motion tabled by the Opposition, and I think that all Labour Members—particularly London Members—welcome the opportunity that they have given us by exercising their choice. I welcome the chance to debate an issue that is crucial to Londoners; in that I join the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). The underground is vital to the well-being of our capital city, and hence critically important to the strength of Britain as a whole.
I also welcome the debate because it gives us a chance to make clear the miserable state of the legacy that the new Labour Government have inherited. We have inherited not an excellent system, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said, but a system that has suffered from 18 years of neglect and underinvestment. I also welcome the opportunity to discuss some of the options that are open to the Government over the life of this Parliament to put in place effective programmes that will secure what we all want—an affordable, efficient, safe and modern underground system in our capital city.
Building and running a first-class underground system is essential for the building and running of a world-class capital city. It is an essential ingredient in an integrated transport system for the capital. Businesses will stay in the capital and new businesses will invest in London only if their personnel can get around it. Visitors form an increasingly important part of wealth creation and they will come to London only if they can get around it easily; the same applies to those of us who live and work in the capital.
The issue relates not just to London and Londoners but to the United Kingdom as a whole, because, when jobs, tourists and industries come here, they create jobs elsewhere in Britain. London contributes more to the Treasury than it receives from it. It is not a drain on

resources: it creates wealth for the rest of the country. What is good for London is good for Britain, but London's competitiveness has been seriously undermined and is at risk because of the inadequacies of its transport system. Businesses have expressed concern about the record of the Conservative Government. We all know about overcrowded trains, delays and cancellations, which make it difficult for businesses to recruit and retain staff. That makes them think about investing outside the capital.
It has been agreed that the millennium celebrations will take place at Greenwich. I welcome that decision, because it will attract more visitors to London and elsewhere. We have to get our public transport system right if we are to cope with the influx of people to London that those celebrations will attract. The Government are rightly looking at the environmental aspects of city living. We all say that we must tackle the growing dependence on the car, but we will change people's habits only by giving them the alternative of reliable public transport.
The problems facing the Government in that regard faced many big cities, but over the past 10 to 20 years most big cities have sought radical and dynamic solutions to the problem. Many of them have invested in new technologies and projects. The Conservative Government failed to do that. In those cities, such projects are often the pride and joy of the capital and the country. An unusual example is Venezuela, the capital of which, Caracas, has an efficient and well-maintained metro of which its citizens are rightly proud. The Conservative Government could have looked at that example in deciding how to run London's underground.
I agree with Opposition Members that we were once proud of our underground. It was once the world's best, but now it is a crumbling wreck and the neglect is not difficult to see. The system has crumbling tunnels and worn-out signalling, and the trains are overcrowded. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) shakes his head, but I wonder how often he uses the underground. We who use it know the problems, but each year our hopes of a better system were dashed as the situation worsened.
It is not just commuters and tourists who have to put up with shoddy services, because business also suffers costs as a result of the congested and gridlocked city. Business has estimated that the lack of a properly integrated transport system costs it about £20 billion a year. Anyone in London, except perhaps Conservative Members, will say that we need to get London's transport system right.
It is a bit rich for the Opposition to table a motion on the state of the London underground when the Conservative Government showed such complacency on the issue for so long. A former Transport Minister, Mr. John Bowis, said as recently as January that, under the Government, underground services were improving. The voters of Battersea did not believe him, I did not believe him and neither did Londoners. It is no wonder that Battersea now has a Labour Member.
The Opposition motion takes the biscuit. What were the Conservative Government doing for the past 18 years, and how can Conservative Members think that eight weeks in office is enough to change 18 years of neglect? We shall have to sort out the legacy that we have inherited and we must look at some aspects of the mess so that we are under no illusion about the scale of the problem. As the Minister said, the Conservatives have left us with a


staggering investment backlog of £1.2 billion. Worse still, they have left the Government with further budget cuts in Government grant of 28 per cent., which the Conservative Government incorporated in their budget for the next three years.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that the Conservative Government's constant chopping and changing of investment proposals had an appalling effect on London Underground's investment plans. This year, it has been forced to cut its investment programme by £700 million. That money would make a real difference to the network. Those cuts fly in the face of the 1991 Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, which called for investment of £700 million to £750 million a year over 10 years. That advice was given to the Conservative Government in 1991, which makes it impossible for the Opposition to say that they were unaware of the problem, or that their record in government was excellent.
One of the key matters to be understood about the underground is the predicament created by the Conservative Government's failure over the Jubilee line. It is a scandal whose enormity has yet to be properly revealed. That Government allowed development to run wild in docklands without ensuring a proper transport infrastructure to link the development to the rest of London. They had resources to install such infrastructure, but they sold land cheaply and gave capital grants to the private sector and tax concessions to businesses and industries that chose to relocate in docklands.
None of those investors returned anything to the community in terms of transport structure for London. They were supposed to put money into the Jubilee line extension, but I understand that the amount of private sector investment is down to under £400 million. That was supposed to be another model private-public finance initiative undertaken by the Conservative Government, who made no allowance at all for the extra, inevitable costs that arise on such huge projects.
As a result, the extra costs, which will total about £300 million from 1997 to 1999, have had to come out of London Transport's diminished budget. Money that would otherwise have been invested in the rest of the tube network has had to be used to finance the overspend on the Jubilee line extension. To put it another way and to make it clear to the House, during 1996–97, more than £1 billion was invested in the underground system, of which £660 million went on the Jubilee line extension. Only just over £300 million was left to maintain the rest of the network.

Mr. Pickles: Does the hon. Lady now feel that the Government should make up that money? Does she believe that the Government should put in £499 million to make up the shortfall?

Ms Hodge: That is not a terribly clever point. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this Government are having to work within the financial parameters that were laid down by the previous Government. No one can take him seriously if he suddenly pretends that he has no responsibility for decisions that were taken in his name a few months ago and if he tries to put the onus on us.
The funding crisis that we are left with has many graphic examples. Trains are too full to get on, as anyone knows who tries to get on them in the rush hour. Cancellations are commonplace and accidents and power failures are rife. Even today, we read in the Evening Standard about the problems of the escalators at Highgate station, which are 56 years old, are the oldest on the network and have more or less given up the ghost.
Since 1991–92, the number of serious injuries on the tube has more than doubled. In the past year, the number of stations that have been closed for more than 15 minutes—some, I might add, for nearly an hour—has also doubled. Last November, there was a power failure, with 30,000 people stranded in tunnels, some of them for more than two hours. To what was the problem traced back? To the 91-year-old Lotts Road power station. In the same month, 10,000 passengers on the Victoria line suffered serious delay.
The previous Government cannot claim ignorance of those things. Before the last Budget, I, along with some of my Labour colleagues who are in the Chamber today, led a protest to the Treasury to ask the then Chancellor of the Exchequer not to make rumoured cuts in the underground budget. Two weeks later, the cuts were announced and they were roundly condemned by everyone—every newspaper, every pressure group, every section of society and every passenger in London. It was only in the last weeks of the previous Government, when they were scrabbling about for policies to put into a well-worn manifesto, that they decided that something had to be done.
The panacea was privatisation, but there was no coherent package, no proper method of implementation and no real answers. The previous Government assumed that the years of neglect could be solved simply by privatisation, despite the evidence to the contrary—none clearer than the fiasco caused by the British Rail privatisation.
Reference was made to the leaked memo to the then Prime Minister from the former Secretary of State for Transport, who said what would happen if the tube were privatised. It is worth reminding hon. Members of what he said: that, if we privatised the tube, the investment backlog would not start to be dealt with until the next century. As we all know, the underground needs help now, not in several years' time.
Services were also threatened in the leaked memorandum. The former Secretary of State for Transport said:
I do not want to set existing service patterns in stone—some services may well be uneconomic.
The implication of that is not hard to imagine. In fact, a picture was offered by a Conservative think tank—the Centre for Policy Studies—which suggested that all the stations outside zone 3 could be closed, and that that could be justified on economic grounds.
The previous Government's piecemeal approach has meant that a proper plan for the underground has always been lacking. I shall give just one other example, which I know well. From the autumn, there will be new Northern line trains, financed from the private finance initiative. It took long enough for that to happen, but they will finally run. Unfortunately, the service will not be any faster; in fact, it may be slower because we have not modernised the track, and signalling work has been put back three years because of the previous Government's cuts.
I hope that I have said enough to convince anyone listening who does not already know that the blame for


the mess lies at the Government's door [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I mean at the previous Government's door—we have all got to get used to this. It is now up to us to sort out that mess, and that is why we have announced a full-scale review of the underground.
We need a proper strategy, not a piecemeal approach. We need an integrated approach to all transport infrastructure in London, which is why our proposals for a Greater London authority and an elected mayor are essential for proper planning and a proper system in future. However, we have an immediate crisis and we need to tackle that with vigour, imagination and courage. We all recognise the public expenditure constraints that we have inherited and it is nonsense to suggest that bringing finance in to pursue the public interest is the same as privatisation. It simply demonstrates yet again the Opposition's inability to think in new terms for the modern world.
We can effectively use private finance to assist with the investment that we so desperately need. For instance, stations could be modernised with private investment and their potential for retail development exploited, so that the private sector interest could be married with a good public sector outcome. We have the example of the very successful Manchester metro, which was developed by a public-private partnership. Future investment is planned, with money coming from local authorities, Government, Europe and the private sector.
I hope that the Government will consider the proposals that have been made by Tony Travers and Stephen Glaister from the London school of economics. Their proposals found considerable support in the business community in London. They suggested a small, specific levy on the business rates in London to finance specific improvement proposals for the underground.
Clearly, business ratepayers would need to be properly consulted—and it might make a change if we allowed them to vote on whether they wish to go down that road—but, if the proposals were accepted, it could ensure a regular flow of money for investment, and it would mean that transport investment would not have either to compete with investment in hospitals and schools or to count against the public sector borrowing requirement. Most important, that concept has considerable support in the business community.

Mr. Brooke: In that device, how is the hon. Lady going to overcome the potential resistance of the Treasury, which, if it sees that that money is being provided from another source, will simply reduce the amount that is going to London Underground from central Government?

Ms Hodge: I understand that, if this mechanism were used, there would be no need for it to be considered as counting against the PSBR. That is certainly my understanding of the position.

Mr. Brooke: I made no reference to the PSBR. I simply asked how the hon. Lady would prevent the Treasury from simply using the business funding as a substitute for central Government funding.

Ms Hodge: That was a trick that the previous Government tended to pursue at every opportunity. I do not

think that it is one that we would wish to imitate, because we recognise the importance of increasing investment in the underground system.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, immediately before the election, Westminster city council welcomed the idea of a PH and rejected the concept of privatising London Underground. That, of course, is the council that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) represents. Perhaps he could explain his views on the policies adopted by his own council.

Ms Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that matter to my attention; no doubt the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster will wish to reflect on it.
I have the fullest confidence that Ministers will demonstrate imagination, and pursue the issue with vigour. There is an overwhelming consensus in London in every strata of our very mixed community that something needs to be done. There is enormous good will among the citizens, businesses and representative organisations to work with Government to find a solution to a problem that we all know is not of this Government's making.
We can leave Conservative Members to carp; that is all that they are good for. We can leave them stuck in the past while we start thinking for the future, but I make a plea that we do not leave London's underground system to—if hon. Members will pardon the expression—go down the tube. Londoners would never forgive us for that.

Mr. Thomas Brake: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the future of London Underground, a subject close to the heart of Londoners who, according to its annual report, make 2.5 million journeys each day.
I must start by questioning why the Opposition have chosen the tube as the subject of today's debate. I assume that they are not trying to draw attention to their own record while in government because, as every regular commuter knows—I count myself in that category because I have worked in London for 16 years and have used the tube nearly every day during that time—the underground requires £1.2 billion of investment to catch up with the backlog of repairs. Passengers suffer indignity after indignity. At the main interchanges there are often queues to get into the stations, through the ticket barriers, down the escalators and on the platforms, and overcrowded trains await passengers.
According to recent London Transport statistics 22 per cent. of passengers travelling on the Central line, 21 per cent. on the Northern line and 16 per cent. on the Piccadilly line are in overcrowded trains. But the prize for the hardest-pressed commuters goes to the users of the Waterloo and City line, where more than 60 per cent. of commuters travelled in overcrowded trains.
I doubt also whether Conservative Members are seeking to highlight the so-called success of their rail privatisation programme, of which, again, I have considerable experience. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there has been little, if any, improvement in train punctuality, cleanliness or overcrowding. In fact, quite the


contrary, for Connex South Central commuters during the past couple of weeks, of which I am one, or South West Trains commuters earlier in the year.
The promised bonanza in investment has not happened since rail privatisation. Railtrack has been criticised for delivering for its shareholders but not for passengers, and savings have yet to materialise. The private companies are now receivin' double the subsidy that British Rail used to receive. John Swift, the Rail Regulator, is threatening draconian fines if the rail operators do not get their act together and provide a proper public inquiry line.
I am also sceptical about the Opposition's call for the Government to avoid dogma. Was it not the Conservative Government who, but for the timely leak of a letter, would have privatised the underground for £800 million when it had assets of £13 billion? If that is not dogma, I do not know what is.
As hon. Members have said, the Opposition have chosen the subject simply to embarrass the Secretary of State who, absent-mindedly, left some notes at the BBC which have since received extensive publicity. Those papers revealed that the Government are considering a private-public partnership to run the tube where
the private sector is the majority shareholder.
During the general election campaign the Labour party's proposals for the tube were studiously vague, but if the Government are considering the private sector as a majority shareholder, is that wholesale or partial privatisation? That reports have said that the Department of Transport would brief journalists, which suggests that something needed to be spun. I hope that today's debate will clarify the Government's current plans.
In the words of the Prime Minister's Denver statement, I hope that the Government are committed to
an integrated transport policy that makes public transport more attractive and gets traffic flowing more sensibly.
I should add that I hope that they will reduce traffic, not simply get it flowing more sensibly.
If the Government are considering splitting the infrastructure with the rail and signalling equipment on one side and the tube services on another, will that help to achieve an integrated transport policy? Such a split may have made sense with British Rail because train operators are required to use the same track—but does it make sense for London Underground, and what are the safety implications of such a split? Unless more detail is forthcoming, I will have to describe the Government's plans as half-baked, a description used by the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) in a debate in February on tube privatisation.
It is worth reminding hon. Members of some of the questions asked by Labour Members during that debate. How much will privatisation, even partial privatisation, cost? What guarantees will there be about maintaining and improving service levels? Will any part of the network be deemed uneconomic and be closed down? How much will be spent on consultants whom we hear the Government will be employing as part of the review? Those are questions that the Government will have to answer. One way in which the Government might consider bringing investment into, say, the Northern line, would be to rename it the Millennium line. That would be a way of guaranteeing investment in it.
No one can deny that there is a crisis and that London Underground is in need of an urgent injection of cash. The incidents of passengers being trapped underground, frequent signal failures and escalators out of operation confirm that. That makes it difficult to appreciate the "charm" of the London underground as recommended by Peter Ford, chairman of London Transport.
Core investment—that needed to keep the system in a steady state—is expected to be £350 million per annum by 2000. As we have heard, the previous Government cut grants by no less than £700 million. The public want improvements. Londoners are crying out for better public transport and for imaginative proposals such as the reopening of the old Lords Metropolitan line station. There would be some difficulty, given that the Hilton hotel is on top of it, but if it were reopened it would provide direct access to Lords cricket ground, London zoo and the central mosque.
The Liberal Democrats would like the Government to consider setting up a public interest company which would be free to borrow money on the markets, and such borrowing would be outside the PSBR. There are some working examples in the States. The establishment of such a public interest company, and possibly others, such as for the Post Office, could form part of a wider-ranging review of the Government's accounting regime. This review could consider using the general Government financial deficit as an accounting regime, as happens in other European countries. This public interest company could receive hypothecated income from a number of possible sources, and I shall outline a few of them.
I hope that the Government will consider the option of a tax on non-residential parking spaces in London. I also hope that they will consider road pricing as one of their options. A simple, low-cost way of implementing road pricing would be to require those driving through central London to display a central zone London Transport ticket on their windscreen.
Another option would be an increase in business taxes, which has been mentioned. There is support for that idea in the business community. The chamber of commerce conducted a poll and found that 84 per cent. of top business men supported some kind of congestion charge. Finally, there might be a possible tax on the users of hotel beds, although I understand that that would not be terribly popular with hoteliers. Such steps would give London Underground the stable financial regime it needs for coherent, long-term planning.
Before the general election, a number of Liberal Democrats had meetings with the management of London Transport. I was appalled to find that, as the end of the financial year approaches, the annual budget cycle means that London Transport scrabbles around for things on which to spend its money. They are not necessarily the best projects, but just projects on which it can spend the money quickly.
The experience of rail privatisation shows that moving London Underground into the private sector is by no means a guarantee of investment in either the short or medium term. We shall therefore vote against the Opposition motion, but I do not feel that we can support the Government's amendment. The amendment asks us to applaud the options being considered for "public-private partnerships" but, until there is more flesh on the bones and until the Government have squared the Circle line, so to speak, we could not support the amendment.
We urge the Minister to consider as one of the options the possibility of setting up a public interest company which could rely on the sources of income that I have described, as well as on public subsidy. That is the only way that we can provide Londoners with a tube to rival Europe's best.

Mr. Clive Efford: As someone who has been employed in London's transport industry for the past 11 years, I am delighted to make my maiden speech in this debate and to support the Government's amendment.
My constituency is not served by the London underground. In fact, the London underground has only just discovered the borough of Greenwich, which is where my constituency is. The Jubilee line extension will reach Greenwich in time for the millennium celebrations, bringing the London underground to Greenwich for the first time.
There are only 700 industrial jobs in my constituency; the majority of jobs in the borough are in the service industries. The majority of people who are employed travel to work in central London. London transport services provide vital links between the people of my constituency and their place of work.
Throughout the history of our capital city, transport links with London have helped shape my constituency. Communities have built up around stations such as Eltham Park and Well Hall, which have now been replaced by a new station at Eltham, a New Eltham station, Kidbrooke and Mottingham. These have given rise to a number of estates, each with its own distinct design and character, from Coldharbour in the south to the slopes of Shooters hill in the north.
The Corbett estate, which to this day has a covenant prohibiting any premises being used for the sale of alcohol, is where I live. I live in the middle of an area with no public house for many miles. Fortunately, the good Lord provides, and within the ward where I am a local councillor, the church of St. Barnabas provides a small clubhouse which is a welcome oasis for many local residents. The club is named after one of Eltham's famous sons, Frankie Howerd. I am pleased to say that it has just won the CAMRA award for the club of the year. To celebrate, there was a beer festival last weekend, and I took it to be my duty to attend. The Corbett estate was also home to another famous comedian, Bob Hope, and Eltham's little theatre is named after him.
My constituency also boasts the Progress estate, which was built during the first world war in only 11 months to house workers of the royal arsenal at Woolwich. It has the appearance of a Kent village. One of the houses was home to Herbert Morrison, who eventually moved to another house near to Eltham town centre which, to this day, bears a blue plaque in his honour. Denis Healey also lived in my ward. He was the son of a worker at the royal arsenal and lived in the properties known as the Hutments until the age of 11.
The A20 and the A2 cut through the heart of my constituency and are a reminder of the ancient links between London and Kent. Shooters hill was the old Roman road to Dover. Royalty has also held court in Eltham, and the surviving buildings of the Eltham palace built in the 14th century can still be visited today. There is also a Tudor barn which was built in the 16th century

and is now an excellent pub and restaurant. Set in the magnificent surroundings of Pleasance park, it is well worth a visit; I invite all hon. Members to come and enjoy the surroundings. That is all that remains of the mansion built by Will Roper, the son-in-law of Thomas More. It later became the home of Edith Nesbitt, author of "The Railway Children", and her husband, Hubert Bland, one of the founders of the Fabian society.
There is one story which shows that commuting from Eltham to London has always had its hazards. It concerns one Geoffrey Chaucer. Chaucer was the clerk of works during part of the construction of Eltham palace. One of his tasks was to travel to Westminster to collect the wages. On his way back along the A2 at Hatcham near New Cross, he had the misfortune to be mugged. He was immediately sent back to collect another set of wages and was once again robbed when he reached New Cross. Soon after that, Chaucer's services at the palace were dispensed with and he went on to become a writer, as one would. Some credit his work as the starting point for English literature. People who know London will know that New Cross is very near Millwall football club.
Before anyone jumps to any conclusions, I must point out the time span between the founding of Millwall and the event that I have just described. As a lifelong Millwall supporter, I have to say that Millwall football club is famous for many things, but not for its influence on English literature.
My constituency is not home to any professional team, but the borough of Greenwich is home to Charlton Athletic. Many of my constituents support Charlton and Millwall, our local teams, and I take this opportunity to wish them both well in the forthcoming season. I look forward to a time when the reds of Charlton and the blues of Millwall compete at the top of the league in the manner of Liverpool and Everton and Manchester United and Manchester City but, this time, with the blues being the most successful team.
In accordance with the protocol of a maiden speech, I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor who is now the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Botitomley). He announced that he would not stay to contest the seat on the grounds that it was marginal and that he was too old for such a task. I assume that his campaign slogan was, "You're Never Too Old for Worthing West". I shall bear that in mind. I shall miss his "Westminster Watch" column in our local newspaper. It was written in a style that only he could manage. He represented Eltham for 22 years and made many friends during that time, and I pay a warm tribute to him.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin), which is a new constituency. He is a former leader of Greenwich council and is very well respected in the area. He has worked hard on behalf of the local community, and I thank him for the assistance that he has given me since I arrived in the House as a new Member. I shall endeavour to represent the people of Plumstead as he has done for the past five years, as they now form part of my Eltham constituency.
London's public transport system is crucial to the future of our capital city. From my vantage point as a worker in the industry, I have witnessed the damaging effects that the lack of investment in the infrastructure has had on people's attitudes to London. People are getting increasingly angry and frustrated about our public


transport service. Some people find the underground too uncomfortable or too unsafe and cannot rely on the buses because of the delays caused by traffic congestion. There are also complaints about the congestion caused by too many unnecessary journeys being undertaken by road.
The London underground is vital to the well-being of the capital. Every Londoner wants to improve the environment in which they live. Each recognises the importance of the public transport system in reducing car pollution. The consumer wants safe, affordable, comfortable, reliable public transport—an integrated transport system with through ticketing for all forms of transport, door to door, with facilities for disabled access planned into the system from the start, not a belated addition implemented as costs allow.
I have a plea for all local authorities to be compelled to participate in a London-wide taxi card scheme. I make no apology for making that plea. All fleets of vehicles that are allocated local authority contracts should have wheelchair access.
Road pricing has been mooted as a possible way to combat the increase in road use, which is predicted to grow by 20 per cent. between 1991 and 2011. The number of car journeys is predicted to rise by 27 per cent. and the number of commercial vehicles by 50 per cent. while the number of bus journeys is predicted to fall by 12 per cent. Some people believe that the way to combat that problem is to introduce a pricing regime to charge drivers for using roads. There are various options, some of which have been tried in major conurbations overseas. My view is that it would be unworkable and unpopular—a poll tax on wheels.
London needs a strategic approach to bring together all the providers of transport—bus, train, taxi and the underground. We need clear objectives. How will the success of public transport be measured at the end of each year—by its profitability to a private company or by the increase in the number of train miles travelled by passengers or in the numbers using public transport?
It is impossible to overstate the financial mess that the Government have inherited. Up and down the country, there are schools in desperate need of repair, hospital trusts and health authorities in deficit to the tune of millions of pounds and an investment backlog in vital services such as the London underground. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has said, London Underground estimates that investment backlog will be in the region of £1.5 billion by the end of the century.
London is the portal through which the rest of the world views our country. How we treat our capital city creates the image by which Britain is judged and visitors and investment are attracted. Our performance here has a knock-on effect throughout the country. Since the loss of the Greater London council, London has had no voice. The lack of co-ordination in the planning and delivery of services is apparent to all who wish to see it.
London's underground is in urgent need of investment to meet the challenges ahead as the millennium approaches. Wherever the resources come from, they must not be directed at the behest of the private sector. The needs of the environment and of the people of the capital are too pressing. Experience shows that, when it comes to the environment, the market is too slow to respond, if it responds at all. Investment in the London underground

system will be more cost-effective if it is co-ordinated with all other forms of transport. Let us start to invest in our capital city, but let us do it with the needs of the city at the top of our agenda. Let us make London the world's premier city once again.

Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford). We on the Conservative Benches enjoyed it enormously, particularly his comments about the age of his predecessor. I was interested to hear of the connection with the author of "The Railway Children". For the best part of 17 years, I lived within a few hundred yards of the film location of "The Railway Children". Although I wish the hon. Gentleman a happy stay in this House, I could not help but speculate that, should the time come when the Prime Minister elevates him to another House, he will have quite a tongue twister of a title to take, given his name and the name of his constituency.
As the first member of the old Transport Select Committee to speak in this debate, I congratulate you, on behalf of the other members, on your new position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish you every success.
I have been disappointed by the Government's response. I had thought that we might hear how the underground system would be financed. All we heard was that they are against wholesale privatisation. I suppose that that means that partial privatisation is okay. We heard some suggestions from the Liberal Democrats about a public interest company. I can think of no better way to sum up that argument than the words of an editorial in The Independent, which said:
while this might technically remove the company from the public finances, in truth it doesn't fool anyone. It is just Government borrowing by another name, and expensive to boot.
There is an irony in the debate. The tube has suffered from chronic underfunding for the best part of 50 years. The only Government to make a significant impact on the backlog was the last Conservative Government. Even after the cut in the projected expenditure, investment in the underground remains at double the level of the 1970s and 50 per cent. higher than in the 1980s.
We have seen some improvements in the tube. The hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who is no longer in her place, asked whether I travel on the tube. I have travelled on the tube since I have been coming to London. It remains one of the fastest ways of getting about the capital. With respect to the hon. Member for Eltham, it is sometimes quicker than a taxi.
The underground has the potential to take care of our transport needs well into the next century. Its operating surplus has risen from nothing to around £200 million, and improvements are planned. It will gradually move on to a self-financing basis, but only to keep itself in a steady state. Without a substantial increase in grant or capital from elsewhere, it will not be able to do anything about the backlog.
The hon. Member for Barking talked about the overspend on the Jubilee line, caused by technical problems at Heathrow. The previous Government put aside £100 million as a contribution. When the Jubilee line extension comes into action, it will add about £499 million extra to the cost of the steady state, and


that includes the overspend. That money must come from somewhere—from the proceeds of privatisation, from extra Government grant or from the core service.
The hon. Member for Barking talked lovingly about the Metrolink, which cost around £210 million. When the Select Committee took evidence, it was suggested that, if the same formula were applied to the underground, nearly £4 billion of investment would be needed. The Government will not be able to offer such sums to the tube.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have used the words "private finance initiative" almost like a sword or a wand, as though it will be able to take care of everything. The Minister of Transport talked lovingly about the effects of PFI projects. The new Northern line trains will come soon. There are three other projects on the line; an auto-ticketing project; a project to take care of high-voltage generation; and one to integrate radio access. All of them combined are worth only £600 million. It would be interesting if the Minister would tell us the state of progress on each of those projects.
The private finance initiative is suitable for capital work, but not for taking over main funding. After all, PFI offers a way in which we could finance the tube network, but not any new funding. Funding is the moving over of real resources. The PFI is simply rescheduling of the debt. Someone has to pick up the tab over the period. The tube needs real funding. The experts, Mr. Travers and Mr. Glaister, who have been referred to already, draw a distinction simply between finance and funding. To use the analogy of a house purchase, the building society provides the finance, but the house purchaser provides the funding. Only the purchaser puts in any real resources.
It is unlikely that the private sector will be prepared to fund inherently loss-making activities. The hard truth is that the PFI cannot make any significant contribution to providing new funds for the underground. The hon. Member for Barking said, "Do not worry. All this can be taken care of. We can generate more income from shops around our tube stations." She might have been thinking of Baker Street, Liverpool Street or Bond Street stations, but most of our tube stations are old and cramped and there is no place to put any significant increase in retail development. In the past 10 years, commercial lettings have doubled. A reasonable estimate has been made that, in the next six years, that would probably provide, say, £250 million, but it is not enough. The truth is that salvation of the rail network will not come through a combination of Spud-u-Like and Tie Rack.
The hon. Member for Barking and the Minister of Transport said how important the new strategic authority for London would be. The hon. Lady talked in terms of the London infrastructure fund that has found such favour with London First and the Corporation of the City of London. It involves a levy on the national non-domestic rate in London. She also quoted Glaister and Travers. She talked about a modest increase. Glaister and Travers estimate that a 10 per cent. yield would bring in an extra £300 million to £400 million a year. I am not entirely sure that businesses in London want to pay extra, but whether they do or not, what is beyond debate is the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)—that such money as was raised would be regarded as part of public expenditure.
When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced yet another of the Government's fundamental reviews a couple of weeks ago, this time of public spending, I specifically asked him whether he had any intention of changing the rules on the definition of what was and what was not public expenditure, especially in the light of expenditure on local government. He said:
So far as changing definitions is concerned, the House will he aware that there are no shortcuts. Fiddling definitions to achieve an end is not justified, and we do not intend to do it."—[Official Report, 11 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 1152.]
The possibility of raising money through a strategic authority or the transport infrastructure fund simply does not arise.
We need action now. We know from evidence taken by the Select Committee that the previous level of investment means that there is a grave risk that we will lose people with engineering expertise from London Underground. Expansion by Railtrack means that contractors and workers will be attracted away to work on the railway network, and gradually they will lose their expertise in dealing with an underground railway.
No Government can come up with the level of investment that is required in the London underground system, because Governments will always be susceptible to competition for resources from schools and hospitals. It has been suggested that, to compensate for the activity brought about by privatisation, the Government would have to come up with about £4 billion. The tube network needs a more stable environment in which Governments do not change their minds about the level of investment. We also need privatisation to tackle the poor industrial relations that have bedevilled the tube network and done so much to damage its reputation.
Privatisation has brought some benefits to the railway, especially in my constituency. We have better services, improved conditions and smarter stations, and we know that Railtrack will invest about £16 billion over the next decade. The Government simply have to take courage and accept that they must do a U-turn. They should not worry about doing a U-turn. It is nothing in comparison with what they will have to face in the not-too-distant future. Whether they are in favour of wholesale privatisation is irrelevant. The only solution comes through privatisation. The Government may tinker about and wonder whether they require a golden share, but in a properly regulated regime they have nothing to fear from privatisation.
We should have pride in the level of services and not be so terribly hung up on who owns them. We should concentrate on matters such as prices, ticket exchange. facilities for the disabled and the renewal of stock. Those are the changes that the customer requires. We should not be so terribly worried about the level of private investment. We have to understand that the only solution is increased private involvement in the tube network. That can come, for the benefit of the customer, only through privatisation. Any other way is a short cut to disaster.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: I understand why we have this Opposition motion. It aims at an irresistible target, but it is breathtaking to have the Conservative party now riding forward to the defence of the tube.
This may be one of those stories that are not true, but it sounds so close to the reality of the involvement of many Conservative Members with the tube that I cannot


help but repeat it. I recall reading an article when I was the leader of the Greater London council about a junior Minister, who for all I know may now be a member of the shadow Cabinet, who got stuck in a major traffic jam. Unable to get to his meeting with the then Prime Minister—a matter that would strike terror in the heart of anyone in those days—he led his civil servants out and rushed down the nearest tube station, only to discover a rather crowded and unpleasant train coming in. He turned to his civil servants and said, "Let's find the buffet car." The story almost has a touch of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) about it, but I do not want to provoke him.
I seldom see Conservative Members of Parliament when I travel on the tube. Far too great a reliance on ministerial cars cuts people off from reality. That is something that will afflict my own Front-Bench colleagues. It is all too easy as one swishes along in a ministerial car not to notice the appalling conditions that the vast majority of ordinary London commuters have to put up with on the tube.
For years and years, the previous Government launched attacks on London's public transport. I do not have the slightest disagreement with their complaint that, in the 1960s, it suffered from under-investment; however, when, finally, there was an administration at the Greater London council that wanted to invest in transport, it was prevented from doing so. The previous Government took away that power from the GLC because we were spending too much.
When I intervened earlier, I pointed out that, as leader of the GLC, I lobbied the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), now the Opposition spokesman on transport, and begged that Londoners should be able to manage their own tube network without Government interference. We were prepared to pay for the modernisation and extension of the tube out of the rate base in London. That is what Londoners had voted for. The then Government used their legal powers to prevent us from doing so.
It was not just the Labour administration at the GLC that encountered problems. The previous Tory administration, under the late Sir Horace Cutler, also went to the then Labour Government and asked for extra money for the transport infrastructure. I agree with Conservative Members that the record of the previous Labour Government was lamentable. I heard my hon. Friends protest at that, but they would not have done so if they had been on the receiving end of the delegations that Labour and Tory members of the GLC took to meet Bill Rodgers, when he was Labour's Secretary of State for Transport. He turned them away and denied their request to extend the tube network.
Administrations at the GLC, Labour and Tory, asked Labour and Tory Governments, year on year, for the permission to spend increased amounts of investment on that network. Their requests were refused—not, I suspect, because Transport Ministers were opposed to them, but because of the Treasury's deathly hold on so much of government in this country. The problem for whoever runs the country is that, at the end of the day, the Treasury snuffs out any excellent ideas.
We could have had the Jubilee line operating for the past 10 years if the politicians at county hall, Labour and Conservative, had not met with obstruction from Labour

and Tory Governments, and the Treasury. Any new London authority will be doomed to impotence when called on to tackle the problems that confront London if it does not have some independence from the stranglehold of the Treasury.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, because his response to the Tory motion was the most commanding presentation of a dog's breakfast I have ever heard. I know him as an old colleague from his Socialist Campaign Group days. He probably does not believe most of what Ministers have to say these days, and I never recall him complaining about a tax and spend policy at meetings of the group in those golden days of old.
Why do we not let Londoners decide about their transport? Londoners do not want to be told that they do not want a tax and spend policy designed to improve the tube. Why do we not consult them, hurry forward the creation of a new London authority, and let Londoners decide?

Mr. Alan Clark: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting a special tax for them?

Mr. Livingstone: If Londoners vote to pay the money through their council tax and the business rate to get the transport system that London needs, we will all benefit from that.
Since the abolition of the GLC, the big difference in the past 15 years has been the change in the business community's opinion. Once, it bitterly opposed any increase in the rate; now, its representatives often lead the demand for more investment in public transport, because they recognise the impact of a bad, congested London transport system on their profitability and competitiveness. There is an emerging consensus between Londoners and the business community in London that they would be prepared to pay for a transport system that would make living in London a lot better and make trading in London more attractive and a greater source of profits.
I do not want to speak for too long, because I know that another Opposition Member must be called before the winding-up speeches. I have never really understood my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), when he has gone on, year after year, about the West Lothian question. Sometimes that has tried my patience, but as I listened to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who represents a Scottish constituency, announcing that we cannot opt for a policy of tax and spend, irrespective of what Londoners think, I began to understand what my hon. Friend has gone on about. It strikes me as bizarre that a Member representing Scotland can, as Minister of Transport, tell Londoners what they can and cannot have, while Members representing London are about to be denied the right to have any say about the transport policies of Scotland.
My party must quickly work out the solution to that problem, because that type of contradiction will come up again and again. Imagine what unscrupulous, cynical, populist politicians could do with it. They could stir up anger against the Labour Government. Just 20 years ago, the National Front got 5 per cent. of the vote in London. It would be easy to run a campaign arguing that Londoners were denied a voice and that Ministers from outside our city were telling them what they could and could not do.
There is a vital and urgent need to establish an elected authority for London and to pass on to it responsibility for decisions about transport. It would be directly accountable to London and its decisions would not be filtered through Ministers who do not represent London constituencies.
I took part in GLC delegations to members of the previous Labour Government, and we often encountered a strong anti-London feeling. It was felt that it was all so easy down here and that we did not know about the real poverty in Newcastle and Liverpool. In response, the GLC and the London Boroughs Association—it was a cross-party effort—arranged for delegations of councillors from those areas to visit the east end, the most deprived part of London, to see the scale of poverty.
The House and the Government must wake up to the fact that the greatest poverty in the country is found here, in the capital city. This capital city, however, sustains the rest of the country by exporting its wealth. London, with the greatest concentration of poverty in the country, and a disastrous public transport system that is overcrowded and breaking down, is bled dry to sustain other parts of the country. Londoners are denied the right to invest properly in our own city.
I described my right hon. Friend's presentation as commanding, but I do not have the slightest doubt that we are waffling around in the middle. There are just two ways forward: we must either increase revenue from taxation in one form or another to pay for the modernisation of the tube network or privatise the tube network. There is no middle way. Some sort of semi-privatisation may be dressed up in other terms, but I remind those on the Government Front Bench that they printed 1 million leaflets that promised that, on the Friday after the election, the threat of tube privatisation would be lifted. We cannot possibly go back on that commitment.
We could privatise the tube and we could pay for that investment by reducing off-peak services and by greatly increasing fares in the long term. No business man will come along and just give Londoners a massive subsidy to modernise the tube without expecting his money back and a substantial profit on that investment. That is why it would be better to tax and spend. It is bad enough that we heard banal platitudes during the election campaign, when trying to seduce the voters, but they are not worthy of a Government who have responsibility for running a country.
This country is one of the most undertaxed in the western world. Of the 15 members of the European Union, only Portugal taxes less than we do. It is a divisive issue here, because the level of tax on the individual is painful, but corporation tax is virtually voluntary. With the election behind us, we must stop the nonsense and start telling the British people the truth. If one wants a decent tube network, decent hospitals and schools, taxes must be increased to pay for that. I will have a debate about where those taxes should fall, but it is nonsense to deny Londoners the right to choose for themselves how they pay for their public transport system.

Mr. John Wilkinson: As I listened to the seductive tones of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield

(Sir N. Fowler), whom I welcome back to the Opposition Front Bench, I almost believed that the good old days were back. The hon. Member for Brent, East made a speech of candour and intellectual honesty on a subject on which he is an authority. How refreshing that was and how it contrasted with the ersatz performance of the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), which went on far too long and which turned the debate almost into a soliloquy.
Luckily, we had the pleasant interlude of the distinguished maiden speech of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), who clearly does not need to do the knowledge before speaking on transport in London. His cheerful banter pleased everyone in the House, and he manifestly has a sense of history. He was felicitous in his name dropping, as witnessed by his reference to his distinguished predecessor, who did a runner for the coast—undoubtedly agism is not rife in Worthing, West. We are fortunate in having such a knowledgeable and courteous Member of Parliament as the hon. Gentleman.
I speak as the sole Tory survivor in the whole of west London—

Mr. Alan Clark: My entire constituency is in the "W" postal district.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am speaking of the suburbs—they do exist.
In the general election campaign, three issues came up: schools and the quality of education; hospitals and the quality of the national health service; and the future of London Underground and the quality of its services. In its campaign, Labour gave the impression to a somewhat gullible electorate—in which I include even those of my own esteemed electors who, unlike hardened veterans such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) and myself, had not endured periods of socialist administration in their political lifetime—that within a short period education would dramatically improve; hospitals would no longer suffer ward closures, diminution in the number of beds or extension of waiting lists; and, without privatisation, a great deal of extra money would magically go into the London underground system, to the benefit of the long-suffering travelling public.
I remind the House that my own constituents are deeply dependent on the London underground system. There is a rail alternative to which people can turn in the event of a strike on the underground: there are two railway stations on the Chiltern line at West Ruislip and South Ruislip, which run services into Marylebone. Otherwise, one has only one's car, and my constituents who travel by car to London, to me airport or to other places of work have a terrible job getting through the interminable jams. A really efficient London underground system is therefore essential for those in our part of north-west London.
The jury is out on the Labour Government's policy on the matter. Yesterday, after the Prime Minister's statement about the Denver summit, I raised the question of what Labour would do about the London underground. The Prime Minister was promising that, by means of its participation in an integrated transport strategy, the United Kingdom would play its part in the European Union's reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 15 per cent. by 2010. I suggested that we could therefore expect vastly greater investment in London transport, in order to get


more people off the roads and into the tube system. I was promised a review and there is to be a White Paper on the integrated transport strategy, but—to concentrate the Labour Government's mind—I remind the House that by May next year we are to have borough elections in London. The electorate of London will be casting their judgment on the progress that Labour has made in improving, among other things, London transport.
I want to emphasise two projects for the future—both are of great importance to my constituents and of strategic importance. The first and the one that is more familiar to hon. Members is the crossrail project, which is of great importance for London's transport and for transport from beyond London into the centre and out to Essex. One arm comes down from Aylesbury, the other goes eastward from Reading, through Paddington, the City of London and Liverpool Street and on to Stratford and Essex. It would be a new high-speed transport system, which would immeasurably alleviate the problems endured by my constituents.
The project was put on ice by my right hon. and hon. Friends at the end of the previous Parliament. On 2 April 1996, the then Secretary of State for Transport made an announcement on the future of crossrail. He made three points: first, that the Government's commitment to crossrail remained, although there was no funding; secondly, that construction of crossrail was to follow the channel tunnel rail link and the Thameslink 2000 schemes; and, thirdly, that Railtrack was to be invited to express a view on the project. The programme was set out in full in a policy statement, "A Transport Strategy for London", which was published by the Government office for London and the Department of Transport in May 1996.
The document was encouraging, in that the Government emphasised the benefits that crossrail offered. London Underground remains committed to crossrail and believes that promotion of the powers under the Transport and Works Act 1992 should begin next year, to ensure that work on the project begins after the channel tunnel rail link and Thameslink 2000. The alignment of the projected crossrail scheme is protected by a safeguarding directive and it is most important that the Labour Government make a definitive—and, I hope, favourable—announcement at the earliest possible date. Crossrail could transform public transport in London as no other single project could. In addition, the spur to Heathrow will be especially important if the fifth terminal comes into operation, as I hope it will.
On 2 June 1997, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to make a statement on crossrail. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), responded that the Government
will consider the future of Crossrail in the light of both Railtrack's views when received and our own priorities for transport in London."—[Official Report, 2 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 56.]
Crossrail should be of the highest priority.
The second project that, although more local, is important in north-west London is the projected Croxley rail link, which would extend the Metropolitan line all the way to Watford Junction railway station and there join with the main line rail services to the north-west.
Again, London Underground is keen to proceed—all it lacks is the funding. I urge Her Majesty's Government in their projections of funding for London Underground to ensure that sufficient moneys—be they public or private—are available for the Croxley link. Traffic congestion in the Watford/Northwood area is acute, and the link could make an immeasurable difference. Local authorities are consulting and Railtrack is considering the implications, so I urge the Government to take a positive line.
In conclusion, I can only repeat that the electorate of London and my constituents in Ruislip-Northwood will judge the Government very much by how they address the problems of London transport in the near term, not the immediate or longer term. The problems are urgent and need to be addressed soon. I support Her Majesty's loyal Opposition in the motion that they have tabled, and I hope that the Government respond positively.

Mr. Alan Clark: Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for calling me. I shall address the House briefly, as one of only three remaining Conservative Members of Parliament through whose constituencies underground lines pass. We are in danger of approaching the level of extinction that applies to our former colleagues in more distant parts of the realm.
I pay tribute to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), which I found witty and informative. I have never listened to a maiden speech without being the wiser afterwards, and in this case the fact that Mr. Frankie Howerd, who did so much to enlighten public perception of the holy Roman empire—and in particular the city of Pompeii—is one of his constituency's favourite sons was news to me, and I appreciated being told it.
The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) suggested that I never travelled on the underground, and he is perfectly right, but I do travel by public transport. The importance of public transport is well illustrated by the No. 19 bus, which leaves literally from the door of my flat and deposits me literally at the door of my constituency office—and very useful it is. On many occasions, it provides me and my constituents with a rolling advice bureau on wheels, which is very congenial to all of us.
All London colleagues will remember the forms that I hold in my hand, which we received in copious quantities during and just before the general election, urging us to do something about the state of the underground. I have not counted them, but in common with everyone in this place who suffered the trauma or elation of the events of the night of 1 May, I was reminded by them of a packet of ballot papers. From a purely visual estimate, I should think that there are at least 300 or 400 there. They urge us to remedy the situation in a way that would require drastic public expenditure.
I fully appreciate the point that was made by the hon. Member for Brent, East that expenditure on an enormous scale is the only remedy for the present condition of the underground. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) pointed out the discrepancies in the speech by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). She covered up with the


euphemism of "bringing finance in"— whatever that means. I wrote it down because it was such an extraordinary weasel phrase.
In fact, there is no substitute for expenditure on a colossal scale. It is no use pretending that some of the money will come from the private sector by some device or other. The private sector would not go near the idea unless there were Government guarantees, which would have to be of a rate of return that was slightly—perhaps infinitesimally—better than would be achieved on other, equally safe, forms of investment. The rate would have to be equivalent to that on gilt-edged securities or higher. That means that there is concealed in all the plans a colossal measure of additional public expenditure, and there is no way out of that if the solution that is needed is to be arrived at.
I shall not talk for more than another couple of minutes on the subject of travel on the underground, but I shall read into the record the complaints that some of my constituents suffer, not from travel, but from a symptom which illustrates, if anything, the extraordinary scale of capital expenditure that will be needed. They speak of
the serious problems affecting the covered way over the line between Kensington High Street Station and Gloucester Road Station",
which is the type of thing that must be addressed. It is not what people usually think of when capital expenditure on the underground is mentioned—gnalling, rolling stock, new rails, modern ticketing devices and so on—t major capital expenditure.
Another constituent complains that in
our house, everything moveable (windows, radiators, china and glass) rattle and shake when underground trains pass…We are able to recognise some trains as being what can only be described as thumpers
because those trains are so worn out that some of the wheels are flat and they have a percussion effect that makes the whole house shake.
I read out those letters because they give an idea of the amount of capital expenditure that is required to cure such complaints. The level of degradation indicated by those complaints shows that a colossal level of public spending is needed—spending that will not be put in by private sector initiatives unless Government guarantees are given. Expenditure on an enormous scale is required and, sooner or later, the Treasury and the House will have to face up to what is needed.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) on his maiden speech. It was an excellent speech, as we would expect from a London cabbie. Although I am not sure what my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) would say about his remarks, I am sure that he would appreciate the sentiments that were expressed. The hon. Gentleman spoke about Millwall football club. May I remind him that Crystal Palace got promoted to the premier league this season, not Millwall?
The House and Londoners will be disappointed in the Government's approach to the London underground in this debate. In his opening speech, the Minister offered no hope and no commitment. He initially said nothing about the options that he might or might not be considering, but when, under pressure from my right hon. Friend the

Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), he told us about one or two options, and it was then pointed out that all the options were revealed in The Guardian a few weeks ago, he said, remarkably, that he had not read about the leaks.
Let me read the report to him. The Guardian said—this was from a document that the Deputy Prime Minister left in the "Panorama" studio, having accused the BBC of stealing the document—

Mr. Gordon Prentice: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ottaway: Well, the documents were found in the "Panorama" studio.
The Guardian said:
the documents disclosed that Labour, which savaged the Conservatives' plans to privatise the tube, is going well beyond its manifesto commitment. Among options being considered by Mr. Prescott are to split the underground into two companies, one responsible for stations and track and the other running the trains. This would be similar to the Conservatives' privatisation of British Rail, with Railtrack and train operating companies taking over the bulk of its activities.
The Minister said that he had not read that. The print of the headline is a good couple of inches high. I can only suggest that he gets another press officer in his Department, or that he spends a bit more time reading the stuff that is put in front of him. His statement that he had not read about the letter and that he had not read the articles was the least convincing explanation that I have ever heard from a Cabinet Minister standing at the Dispatch Box.
Old Labour will not allow privatisation, and new Labour will not allow higher spending. We are only six weeks into this Parliament, and already the Government find themselves in a fix. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said, they have a choice: to fudge it or to admit that we were right.
The Conservative Government invested £7.8 billion in London Transport, which included the tube, and in recent years the underground increased train services to a level not witnessed in 25 years. At the same time, the Conservative Government increased the operating surplus from nothing to about £200 million a year. Only a short distance from the House is Victoria, London's busiest underground station, serving more than 77 million passengers a year.
Despite all that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) pointed out in a superb speech in a totally non-partisan way, much more remains to be done. Our aging network, which in part still relies on Victorian engineering, is under extreme pressure, which can only get worse. The reason is that Britain's economic boom had a greater impact on London than on anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
After years of economic decline, with fewer people living and working in the city, London in the 1980s underwent a remarkable recovery. Employment grew enormously. With each new job came a new passenger who required a reliable service to get to work. And they do not all come from the long-established commuter suburbs such as my constituency. With improved rail links, the travel-to-work area has expanded to the point where people commute from Grantham, Gloucester, Colchester and elsewhere. Demand for transport in the City doubled and then doubled again over the past two decades. The transport system has struggled to keep up with that demand.
The growth in demand will continue. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has just launched a worthy campaign to relieve traffic congestion, but if she is successful in persuading people to leave their cars at home, that will merely add to the pressure on the rest of our transport system. What is more, the Government's environmental agenda, espoused by the Prime Minister, makes it quite possible that motorists will face tax rises of unusual severity in forthcoming Budgets. In that event, will the Chancellor re-invest the extra taxation so that Londoners forced off the roads will have reliable transport links; or is this just another dose of hot air from the Government—bland statements, no commitment, no cash and no hope?
Fare payers cannot be asked for limitless amounts. The taxpayer cannot be asked year on year to foot an ever-increasing bill. Each year £700 million is required to take the underground system forward—an amount which, given other demands on the Treasury, is unlikely to be found.
When in government, we advanced a number of PFIs with London Underground, but now Labour claim to have a new solution: PPPs, or private-public partnerships. But neither PFI nor PPP can be the saviour of London Underground. No Government could have pushed harder or with more enthusiasm for private investment programmes than did the former one. More than £500 million of investment through the PFI is already in place, and another £500 million was under negotiation. But as the chairman of London Underground made quite clear to the Transport Select Committee, much of the work required cannot be undertaken by private finance, however much it is dressed up as something new.
It was the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who says that he wants to be mayor of London, who let the cat out of the bag when he admitted that the arguments against privatisation were illogical. Privatisation is the only solution. We know that and so do the Government, but they are held to ransom by their statements in opposition, when they lined up to condemn our plans.
The spokesman at the time, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), said that privatisation of the London underground was a
cynical exercise to try and raise money".
He added that privatisation would put services at risk. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions went further, suggesting that privatisation was a
cold and calculated attempt to defraud the taxpayer",
whatever that might mean.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) says, the Government have dug themselves into a hole. Leaving the underground controlled by the public sector would betray the interests of thousands of Londoners. Privatisation would highlight the hypocrisy of a party that says one thing in opposition and then does another when in power.
When they were in opposition, Labour Members continually cried for more investment in the underground. As the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr.Livingstone), who has now left the Chamber, pointed out, now that they are in government they are proposing a fudge that

will bring neither the financial benefits nor the freedoms that privatisation would ensure. Their suggestion of public-private investment partnerships, and the irrelevant idea of exploiting retailing opportunities at stations, are quite simply implausible.
The Economist described Labour's proposals as half-baked:
The notion that large amounts of private capital can be attracted to publicly owned, inherently loss-making urban transport systems is either naive or dishonest.
That is the nub of the argument advanced so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). For the underground to be able to invest, the private sector would have to have a controlling interest; otherwise any investment or borrowings would count against public expenditure totals, and the financial disciplines of the private sector would be lost. But to allow the private sector a controlling interest is privatisation by the back door—the very plan which the Labour party described as
a vision which would threaten the service and fares for millions of Londoners, bringing more transport chaos to the capital".
I have some sympathy with Labour Members. In the cold grey light of dawn now that they are in power, they have to support a move which not long ago they vigorously opposed. I challenge the Minister to break away from dogma and fancy language and to admit that privatisation is the best hope for the tube.
Our proposal to privatise the tube network is the forward-thinking, radical step that will guarantee the service into the next century. The proceeds from privatisation would be re-invested to modernise the network over five years; fares would rise by no more than the rate of inflation.
The best hope for the underground was set out not in the Liberal or Labour manifestos but in the Conservative party manifesto, which contains all the sensible policies on the future of the London Underground. I urge the Government to come around to our way of thinking—

Sir Robert Smith: rose—

Mr. Ottaway: While I welcome the Government's belated support for such a move, by opposing privatisation in February only to support it by another name in June, they have shown themselves in just six weeks to have betrayed the trust of the electorate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): This has been a truly fascinating debate, in which we have watched the bedraggled remnants of yesterday's Government attempt to come to terms with the fact that they are today's Opposition. They have also attempted to convince the House—or perhaps themselves—that they have always had an interest in, a commitment to, and a passionate concern for the future of the London underground.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on his elevation to the Front Bench.
When I was first informed of the Opposition's intention to hold a debate on this subject—they failed to hold a single one for five long years when in government—my


reaction was to think that they might be preparing to use the occasion as an act of contrition. After 18 long years, perhaps they were finally going to apologise to Londoners for the incompetent, wasteful and destructive mismanagement of the underground network that characterised their period in office.
Unfortunately, my optimism was misplaced. Instead we have witnessed the staggering spectacle of Conservative spokesmen attempting to make political capital out of their wholly discredited proposals for the wholesale privatisation of our tube network.
I had hoped that the debate would be used to examine constructively ways of tackling the massive problems facing London Underground. That was what the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) did in a characteristically thoughtful and informed speech. He will forgive me if I write to him about signalling. I understand that the Pimlico noise is caused by worn track vibrating on the Victoria line. London Underground is dealing with the problem.
Meanwhile the right hon. Gentleman's hopes, and mine, do not seem to be in accord with those of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. Their contributions consisted of three increasingly preposterous propositions. The first was that the appalling problems afflicting our underground system are in no way related to the policies of the previous Administration. Secondly, the wholesale privatisation of the tube was an inspirational concept that was foolishly and callously rejected by the people of London. Thirdly, they believe that, on finding ourselves in government, Labour Members have suddenly undergone a damascene conversion. They pretend that we now dramatically recognise the previous Administration's outstanding success, whereas previously all that we perceived was abject failure, and that we intend to embrace their much-maligned and misunderstood policy of wholesale privatisation of the tube, and to claim it as our own.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the Minister explain exactly what she means by "wholesale privatisation"? If the Government were to sell off separately the trains, and then the tracks and stations, would that be wholesale privatisation?

Ms Jackson: Our definition of wholesale privatisation is the debacle of rail privatisation, which serves as a lesson to all Administrations for all time on how not to proceed if they are really committed to creating a properly integrated public transport system, as this Government most certainly are.

Sir Norman Fowler: Will the Minister confirm that she has read the report—the Secretary of State apparently has not read it—on the options that the Government are considering? Are the Government considering the options that are set out, including ownership on the British Rail model?

Ms Jackson: The Guardian, not my right hon. Friend, claimed that my right hon. Friend was ignorant of the proposals. As my right hon. Friend said in his speech, the proposals referred to in The Guardian are by no means the only proposals that the Government are pursuing.
While I appreciate that the Conservative party is out of practice in opposition, I do not believe that its contributions this afternoon were the stuff of effective

opposition. Conservative Members expressed the concept that London Underground's problems were in no way the result of the previous Administration's inadequacies.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) is no stranger to his present portfolio. He was the first Transport Minister and subsequently Secretary of State for Transport to be appointed by the now ennobled Lady Thatcher, way back in 1979. As he said, 21 years ago he stood at the Dispatch Box, having inherited a transport system from a Government—as we do today—facing criticism for its investment programme.
Some may say that there was some justification for that criticism. Under the previous Labour Administration, core investment had peaked at a mere £197 million. The only new line completed by the Administration, the Jubilee line, was late and over budget, and there were concerns about the age of some of the system's infrastructure.
When the right hon. Gentleman was first appointed to his post back in 1979, he pledged to tackle all those problems. Eighteen years on, as he sits on the Opposition Benches and attempts to attack our proposals, how have he and his colleagues fared? Despite the gallant attempt by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) to defend investment over the past 18 years, on the proposals that we inherited from the Conservative party, investment in the core network is set to fall from £312 million this year to £197 million next year—precisely the same level of investment as in 1976.
That is what two decades of Conservative Government have managed to achieve for London's underground network. Not only were the previous Government unable to attain the economic growth and sound financial framework necessary to prepare our capital's transport system for a new millennium, but they have taken it back in time, not just to the early 1990s or even to the 1980s, but to the 1970s.
The Conservative party now has the gall to pretend to the people of this country that it represents a fresh start. The Labour Government from whom the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield inherited his portfolio two decades ago completed the Jubilee line, the first new underground line in the capital for a decade. By contrast, after 18 years in government, the Conservative party could not even oversee the completion of an extension to the Jubilee line. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), in an informed, informing and highly entertaining maiden speech, revealed that, eventually, the Jubilee line extension will bring the tube to his part of London for the first time.
The core infrastructure, which was criticised when the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was last in opposition, dates back in some instances not just to the 1970s but to the 1800s. After the events of the past two weeks, I must admit that there is little that the Conservative party could do that would amaze me, but even I am at a lost to understand how the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, who had two decades to tackle the problems facing London Underground, could dare to contemplate lecturing this Government for attempting to bring a fresh approach to the method of financing our underground system.
The Opposition called for details of how our plans for the tube differ from those proposed by yesterday's Government before the last election. According to those whose reluctance to comment on misappropriated


Government documents has been somewhat tempered by defeat at the ballot box, they are identical. I find it ironic that Opposition Members have become so keen to claim responsibility for Government policy when they were desperate to avoid it when in office. Getting a Minister of the previous Administration to admit that he or she had any bearing on the affairs of the nation was akin to drawing blood from a stone.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) called for clarification of the Government's proposals, but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport said, we shall not outline in detail our proposals for London Underground at this stage—not because we fear an outraged reaction from the sparsely attended Opposition Benches, but for the simple reason that, when we present our proposals to the House, we intend to ensure that we get them right.
We have seen, through the ramshackle proposals that constituted rail privatisation, just what happens when policies are steamrollered through on the basis of political expediency rather than on the basis of what is right for the country. We do not intend to make the same mess of attempting to revitalise London's tube system as the previous Government made of privatising our nation's rail network. That is why we are not prepared to go into detail at this time about our plans for the tube.

Mr. Pickles: rose—

Ms Jackson: I can tell Opposition Members hungry for more detail what our proposals will not involve. They will not involve artificially hiking up fares to give a false impression of fare stability after restructuring, as the previous Administration proposed. They will not involve squandering hundreds of millions of pounds on lawyers and ad men, as the previous Administration did, at the expense of investment in the network.

Mr. Pickles: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Ms Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not aware that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar Was Attempting to intervene. If he will forgive me, I shall not give way, as I have very little time.
Our plans will be implemented solely on the basis of what we believe is best for taxpayers, commuters and the country at large—not, as the previous Administration did, on the basis of what is most likely to appeal to the disciples of a bankrupt and discredited ideology.
Conservative Members said throughout the debate that they could not see the difference between the policies that we advocate and those that they would have unleashed, had they somehow been able to secure the nightmare of a fifth term in office. That is precisely the point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) said in her highly informed and detailed speech, they cannot see that it is possible to examine new ways of addressing the funding our tube system without recourse to the twin monoliths of wholesale nationalization and

wholesale privatisation. How could they? Their whole administration over the past 18 years was based on attacking the former and worshipping the latter.
That is why the private finance initiative has been such an unmitigated disaster. The only new rolling stock secured for the underground in recent years was obtained after a massive campaign, not just by hon. Members who wanted better public services for their constituents, but by private companies, which were and still are keen to provide them.
That is the problem with the Conservative party. Twenty years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman first sat on these Benches, privatisation was seen as the new way forward. While time has moved on, the right hon. Gentleman and his party are still engaged in the same rhetoric. They are still clinging to the same privatisation ideology, and still trying to persuade others that old-style privatisation is the only way.
When we come to unveil our proposals for London Underground, we will prove to the right hon. Gentleman, to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East and to the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea that there is a new way of securing investment for public services, without hurling those services into the abyss of wholesale privatisation.
The right hon. Gentleman says that we have stolen his party's ideas. We will explore, inquire and search for the ideas that will give the people of London the affordable, modern, efficient tube network that they expect and deserve. I can guarantee that we will not explore, inquire into or search the policies pursued by the Conservative Government between 1979 and 1997. The right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the days when his party was able to influence the running of London Underground ended on I May. Given what we have heard from him and his colleagues in today's debate, it may be quite a while before their influence is felt again.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 375.

Division No. 39]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Collins, Tim


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Colvin, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cran, James


Baldry, Tony
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bercow, John
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Duncan, Alan


Brady, Graham
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Nigel


Browning, Mrs Angela
Faber, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fabricant, Michael


Burns, Simon
Fallon, Michael


Butterfill, John
Flight, Howard


Cash, William
Forth, Eric


Chope, Christopher
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Clappison, James
Fox, Dr Liam


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Fraser, Christopher


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Gale, Roger






Garnier, Edward
Nicholls, Patrick


Gibb, Nick
Norman, Archie


Gill, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Page, Richard


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Paice, James


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Paterson, Owen


Gray, James
Pickles, Eric


Green, Damian
Prior, David


Greenway, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Grieve, Dominic
Robathan, Andrew


Hague, Rt Hon William
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hammond, Philip
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Hawkins, Nick
Ruffley, David


Hayes. John
St Aubyn, Nick


Heald, Oliver
Sayeed, Jonathan


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Shepherd. Richard (Aldridge)


Horam, John
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hunter, Andrew
Spicer, Sir Michael


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Spring, Richard


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)
Steen, Anthony


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Streeter, Gary


Key, Robert
Swayne, Desmond


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Syms, Robert


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Leigh, Edward
Temple-Morris, Peter


Letwin, Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Trend, Michael


Lidington, David
Tyrie, Andrew


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Viggers, Peter


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Walter, Robert


Loughton, Tim
Wardle, Charles


Luff, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Whitney, Sir Raymond


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


MacKay, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wilkinson, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Willetts, David


Madel, Sir David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Malins, Humfrey
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Maples, John
Woodward, Shaun


Mates, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


May, Mrs Theresa
Mr. Malcolm Moss and


Merchant, Piers
Mr. Nigel Waterson.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Ainger. Nick
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)
Bennett, Andrew F


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)
Berry, Roger


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Best, Harold


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blackman, Mrs Liz


Ashton, Joe
Blizzard, Robert


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Baker, Norman
Boateng, Paul


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Banks, Tony
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Barnes, Harry
Bradshaw, Ben


Barron, Kevin
Brake, Thomas


Battle, John
Brand, Dr Peter


Bayley, Hugh
Breed, Colin


Beard, Nigel
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)



Beith, Rt Hon A J
Brown, Rt Hon Nick





(Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Flint, Ms Caroline


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Flynn, Paul


Buck, Ms Karen
Follett, Ms Barbara


Burden, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burnett, John
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burstow, Paul
Galbraith, Sam


Byers, Stephen
Galloway, George


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gerrard, Neil


Canavan, Dennis
Gibson, Dr Ian


Cann, Jamie
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caplin, Ivor
Godman, Dr Norman A


Casale, Roger
Godsiff, Roger


Cawsey, Ian
Goggins, Paul


Chaytor, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Church, Ms Judith
Grant, Bernie


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hain, Peter


Clelland, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Coaker, Vernon
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cohen, Harry
Hancock, Mike


Connarty, Michael
Hanson, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Harris, Dr Evan


Cooper, Ms Yvette
Harvey, Nick


Corbett, Robin
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Corbyn, Jeremy
Healey, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Heath, David (Somerton)


Cotter, Brian
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cousins, Jim
Hepburn, Stephen


Cranston, Ross
Heppell, John


Crausby, David
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hill, Keith


Cummings, John
Hinchliffe, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Dalyell, Tam
Hoey, Kate


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Home Robertson, John


Darvill, Keith
Hood, Jimmy


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hope, Philip


Davidson, Ian
Hopkins, Kelvin


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Howells, Dr Kim


Dean, Ms Janet
Hoyle, Lindsay


Denham, John
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dismore, Andrew
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Dobbin, Jim
Humble, Mrs Joan


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Hurst, Alan


Donohoe, Brian H
Hutton, John


Doran, Frank
Iddon, Brian


Dowd, Jim
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Drew, David
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jamieson, David


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)


Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)
Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)


Ellman, Ms Louise
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Ennis, Jeff
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Fearn, Ronnie
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Fisher, Mark



Fitzpatrick, Jim







Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Milburn, Alan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Mitchell, Austin


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Moffatt, Laura


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Moore, Michael


Keeble, Ms Sally
Moran, Ms Margaret


Keen, Alan (Feltham)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Keetch, Paul
Morley, Elliot


Kemp, Fraser
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Mudie, George


Khabra, Piara S
Mullin, Chris


Kidney, David
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


King, Andy (Rugby)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)
Norris, Dan


Kirkwood, Archy
Oaten, Mark


Kumar, Dr Ashok
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Lepper, David
O'Hara, Edward


Leslie, Christopher
Diner, Bill


Levitt, Tom
Opik, Lembit


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Livingstone, Ken
Osborne, Mrs Sandra


Livsey, Richard
Palmer, Dr Nick


Lock, David
Pearson, Ian


Love, Andy
Perham, Ms Linda


McAllion, John
Pickthall, Colin


McAvoy, Thomas
Pike, Peter L


McCabe, Stephen
Plaskitt, James


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Pollard, Kerry


McDonagh, Ms Siobhain
Pond, Chris


Macdonald, Calum
Pound, Stephen


McFall, John
Powell, Sir Raymond


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


McIsaac, Ms Shona
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


McKenna, Ms Rosemary
Primarolo, Dawn


Mackinlay, Andrew
Prosser, Gwyn


Maclennan, Robert
Purchase, Ken


McNulty, Tony
Quin, Ms Joyce


MacShane, Denis
Quinn, Lawrie


Mactaggart, Fiona
Radice, Giles


McWalter, Tony
Rammell, Bill


McWilliam, John
Rapson, Syd


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Raynsford, Nick


Mallaber, Ms Judy
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Mandelson, Peter
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Marek, Dr John
Rendel, David


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Robertson, Rt Hon George  (Hamilton S)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Rooker, Jeff


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Rooney, Terry


Martlew, Eric
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Maxton, John
Rowlands, Ted


Merron, Ms Gillian
Roy, Frank


Michael, Alun
Ruane, Chris





Ruddock, Ms Joan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Timms, Stephen


Ryan, Ms Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Salter, Martin
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Sanders, Adrian
Touhig, Don


Savidge, Malcolm
Trickett, Jon


Sedgemore, Brian
Truswell, Paul


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Singh, Marsha
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Skinner, Dennis
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wallace, James


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Walley, Ms Joan


Snape, Peter
Ward, Ms Claire


Soley, Clive
Watts, David


Southworth, Ms Helen
Webb, Steven


Spellar, John
White, Brian


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wicks, Malcolm


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stevenson, George
Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Willis, Phil


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wills. Michael


Stoate, Dr Howard
Winnick, David


Stott, Roger
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wise, Audrey


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wood, Mike


Stuart. Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)
Woolas, Phil


Stunell. Andrew
Worthington, Tony


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Mr. Greg Pope and


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House regrets the substantial investment backlog in the London Underground which the Government has inherited; welcomes the Government's rejection of the wholesale privatisation of the London Underground, as proposed by the previous Government; and applauds the Government's swift action on options for public-private partnerships to improve the Underground, safeguard its commitment to the public interest and guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers.

NHS Services (Charging)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I inform hon. Members that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. John Maples: I beg to move,
That this House expresses deep concern that the Government, in implementing its review of the National Health Service, has refused to rule out extending charging for NHS services, particularly the possible imposition of prescription charges for pensioners, charges for hospital hotel services and charges for visits to general practitioners.
It is some years since I spoke in the House. My absence was entirely involuntary, and I am delighted that it has been remedied recently. I represented a part of inner London in my previous incarnation, and I now represent Stratford-on-Avon. I feel fortunate to have represented both inner-city and rural seats in the House. That combination gives one a broad range of experiences and insights that is not available to many hon. Members.
Whereas Lewisham was four square miles, Stratford-on-Avon is 400 square miles—of fields as opposed to tarmac—comprising lovely villages and towns. In the middle is Stratford itself, which is perhaps one of England's most beautiful and historic towns. In future, I intend to speak often in the House about the rural economy, agriculture and development. It is a wonderful place to represent and to live.
I thought that I should say something courteous about my constituency and my predecessor. I am in an unusual position, as my predecessor is still a Member of Parliament—although he is on the wrong side of the House. When I was selected to represent the Conservative party, I promised my supporters that on television on election night they would see five words that they never expected to see: "Stratford-on-Avon: Conservative gain". My constituency had the largest Labour to Conservative swing of the night, and I understand why my predecessor did not hang around. As his defection created this opportunity for me, I remain grateful to him.
I turn now to the motion. It must amaze everyone that the Government have managed to get into such a mess on this issue so quickly, and that we should be in the position of choosing—on the first Opposition Supply day of this Parliament—to debate charges in the national health service under a Labour Government. We are debating the allegation that the Government are considering introducing charges for pensioners' prescriptions, the hotel costs of stays in hospitals and visits to general practitioners.
During the election, we showed repeatedly that Labour's sums did not add up, but few people, including even me—I am about as cynical about Labour's tax promises as one can get—could have imagined that Labour would have thought of squaring the circle by imposing new taxes on sick people.
We could shorten the debate a great deal. The Secretary of State could now—if he wants to do so, I shall give way to him—categorically deny all this. If he will now say that none of that to which I have referred is even being considered and that he rules out such charges completely, categorically and for all time, perhaps we can go home

early. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to intervene? My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and I will even put in a good word at the Treasury for him. We have a few friends there and we know that we are dealing with a Treasury-driven exercise. It seems, however, that that is not enough. We might even put in a good word for the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), because I think that he has something to do with the exercise. I think that the response was to be expected. At least I shall get to make the rest of the speech that I have prepared.
The story first appeared in the Financial Times on Monday 9 June in an article written by, I think, one of our most respected health commentators among journalists. The article read:
The Department of Health's review is expected…to examine charges for NHS 'hotel' costs and GP visits…But a review of the structure of prescription charges could see the better off elderly being asked to pay.
The story was then taken up the next day by the Daily Mail, which made it clear that the exercise was Treasury-driven. The article stated:
Two million pensioners may have to pay prescription charges as Labour cracks down on the NHS budget…The Chancellor…is determined"—
this is interesting—
to slow the ballooning growth of the NHS budget".
That is not a story that we often hear from Labour Health Ministers.
Senior insiders were quoted as saying that
the entire structure of the charges is being reviewed and non-pensioners could also face paying more. A senior Whitehall source confirmed last night that a cutback on free prescriptions was being considered…There may also be 'hotel-style' charges
for stays in hospital.
Both stories clearly originated from an official civil service briefing. The journalists involved did not invent the stories, and they say as much in them.
The very next day, pulling the pieces of the puzzle together—they need to be put together because the Secretary of State has certainly not made it clear what is going on—the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced to the House what appeared to be a run-of-the-mill public spending review. There was no indication from him or the Secretary of State for Health how far-reaching it was intended to be. That did not emerge until the next day, when the Secretary of State was apparently rather indiscreet with journalists after speaking to the Institute of Health Service Managers at Cardiff.
The right hon. Gentleman did not come clean in his speech at Cardiff. Indeed, he deliberately confused the issue. The day before, his Minister of State announced a review to the House. Perhaps we were intended to confuse that announcement with the review that I am discussing. A much narrower review was announced with a named team that would examine ways in which more money might be directed to patient care.
After the Cardiff events, the cat was pretty well out of the bag. That Friday, a rescue exercise was attempted by means of a press release quoting the chief executive of the NHS and the Secretary of State as saying that the health service would remain free. But neither of them used that opportunity or has used any opportunity before or since to deny our fundamental allegation that the review would include possible charges for patients.
As if to confirm our suspicions, the Secretary of State was quoted in The Times on 14 June as saying:
We are going to look at charges.
How could the Secretary of State have got himself into such a mess with what is supposed to be a simple review of health service spending and public expenditure? According to the next day's edition of the Daily Mail, the Prime Minister had the same reaction. The article stated:
Tony Blair is furious with Frank Dobson's 'incompetent' handling of the row over charging patients for health services. The Premier is angry that his Health Secretary confirmed the Government is considering making people pay for GP visits, staying in hospital, and forcing pensioners to pay…for prescriptions.
That is rather restrained language. I imagine that if that message was delivered to the Secretary of State by either the press secretary or the Minister without Portfolio, it was in rather more robust language than that used by the Daily Mail.
The Secretary of State may, however, have taken some comfort from the fact that the story was given fresh life and credibility by the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's Question Time on the Wednesday. We are all rather grateful to the Prime Minister for dropping into the House occasionally, taking intervals in his world lecture tour. We now understand clearly why he wanted to have only one session of Prime Minister's Question Time each week. He was planning to be in the country for only about one day a week.
We know that it must be much more agreeable cuddling up to Lionel, Helmut and Bill than to come to the House to clear up the mess left by the Secretary of State. Instead of lecturing European Heads of State on flexible labour markets—a concept that was entirely alien to the right hon. Gentleman until a few month ago—or lecturing the Americans on their environment, perhaps he should spend more time here getting right the line on the NHS.
During Prime Minister's Question Time on 18 June, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) asked the Prime Minister five times to confirm or deny the story. The Prime Minister, even by his own standards, was pretty loquacious in his answers. The first answer took 144 words but the right hon. Gentleman failed to answer the question. The second time he got down to 124 words. The third time—he must have been getting a bit rattled—he got back up to 157 words. Answers four and five consisted of 127 and 143 words respectively. On none of the five occasions, however, did the right hon. Gentleman answer the question. It was a pretty straightforward question but he took 695 words to say nothing.
We know that precis is not part of the lawyer's art, but civil servants are rather good at it. I suggest that the Prime Minister let them draft his answer next time. I suspect that it will be very short. I suspect that on 18 June the answer would have been yes.
The Prime Minister may have prevaricated, but by not denying the story he has, of course, confirmed it. There is a Treasury-led review of NHS spending that will include consideration of charging patients for services in areas where there are currently no charges.
Both my right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, the Members for Fylde and for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) know something about the Treasury. We all

had our postgraduate educations there. I can only say to the Secretary of State that if the Treasury is in control of the exercise, it will fight its case to the wire and will win. For a start, Treasury officials were much cleverer than anyone else in the civil service.
Charging patients for services is firmly on the Government's agenda. Within six weeks of the election and of taking office, the Government are seriously considering something that, had we even hinted at it before the election, they would have raised an enormous moral hue and cry about. Perhaps that explains why the Secretary of State did not announce the review or its terms.
It has not escaped the attention of the House that the Secretary of State is more than a little sneaky with his reviews. Last Friday—a day when he knew that hardly any hon. Members would be in the House—he announced yet another review, of London hospitals. Surprisingly, however, quite a few Labour Members seemed to have advance notice.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I made it clear on the Friday that I made an effort to get in touch with all London Members whose constituencies were affected by the four hospitals named in my statement. I personally spoke to the one Conservative Member concerned and the one Liberal. Other Liberal Members were informed and were grateful, as was the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). A number of Labour Members were also grateful.
The hon. Gentleman chides me for getting in touch with only a limited number of right hon. and hon. Members, but my actions were rather better than those of the last but one Secretary of State for Health, who sneakily announced the closure of Bart's, not in a statement on a Friday but in a written answer that was smuggled out because she was so gutless that she dare not come to the House.

Mr. Maples: I am interested that, of all the opportunities the right hon. Gentleman has had so far to intervene in my speech, he has chosen not to intervene on the substance of what we are debating. He is obviously rather sensitive. I suspect that he will make a speech not about the matters that I have raised but about something completely different. We shall see.
The Secretary of State is obviously rather sensitive about Fridays. I can only say that statements on sensitive subjects on Fridays are always regarded, justifiably, with much suspicion.
In any event, the Friday statement was part of a pattern of events. The right hon. Gentleman could have come clean and told the House what he was doing in the review of which I am speaking. After all, we are apparently in a new era of open government. Perhaps he has not heard about that. On the Tuesday after the Friday statement, however, the story had to be wrung out of the right hon. Gentleman.
On the same day, his Minister of State sent a detailed letter to hon. Members about a review of the private finance initiative in the NHS. I commend the Minister for doing so, but the Secretary of State should have done the same. Last week, the Secretary of State for Defence sent every hon. Member a letter announcing a defence review.
Reviews are becoming part of the Government's way of life, but why cannot the Secretary of State for Health be open about his, like his colleagues are about theirs?
The Secretary of State has consistently refused to explain what is happening. Only yesterday in Health questions I sought to elicit a narrowing of the gap. I asked the Under-Secretary to confirm
that in no circumstances will the parents of young children who are ill have to contribute financially to the costs of their medical treatment".—[Official Report, 24 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 657.]
Even I would have thought that the Labour party could clearly confirm that, but the hon. Gentleman could not do so. Perhaps he has had some line dictated to him by the Treasury, because his answer was remarkably short for him—it is a few years since I have heard him speak, but he used to go on a bit and he got his answer into four lines. I suspect that he could not confirm that because the Government are reviewing all areas of charges.
It is conceivable that the parents of sick children will be asked to contribute financially. Would any Minister like to deny that now? Would the Secretary of State like to deny that it is on the agenda? If he will not do so, it is reasonable for us to assume that it is on the agenda.

Mr. Dobson: What about the killing of the first born?

Mr. Maples: Even the right hon. Gentleman would deny that he was going to do that.
It is no wonder that this fire refuses to die down. We have had to use a Supply day to drag the Secretary of State to the House to explain himself and his actions. The Government's job is to make decisions, not to conduct reviews. The Labour party had 18 years to think about what it was going to do with the health service, and for most of that time it did nothing but criticise our handling of the health service. When Labour finally gets into power, it does not know what it is going to do. Those 18 years apparently produced no decisions and no clear policies.
No fewer than three reviews that we know about are being undertaken by the Department of Health alone. Reviews are not decisions: they are not even substitutes for decisions. They are usually undertaken to avoid decisions and to kick problems into touch. Perhaps the Secretary of State hopes that, by the time someone throws this ball back in, he will have moved on and the problem will be his successor's—there is probably a good chance of that.
I hope that the Secretary of State will note our questions, because the House is entitled to an answer. We want to know the exact terms of the review. It is instructive that the right hon. Gentleman is not making any note of that. That is an example of the increasing arrogance with which the Government treat the House, as though it is not entitled to ask questions of the Government and of Ministers and to expect answers. If he does not answer these questions, they will be tabled for written answer very shortly. What are the terms of the review? What is its timetable for reporting? Who is conducting it? Are any Ministers directly involved, and what Departments are represented?
The Government have tabled an amendment that is designed to allow the Secretary of State to avoid dealing with the issues and to attack us instead. It gives him an excuse for not coming clean with the House. I remind him that he is now a very senior Minister, responsible for one of our great Departments of State with a budget of more than £30 billion a year. That money is voted by the House, which is entitled to explanations of how the Department is run.
I invite the Secretary of State to respond openly to the debate: if he chooses to do so, he can clear the matter up once and for all in a simple sentence. If he does not, we are entitled to stick to our temporary and provisional conclusion that the Government are considering levying new charges on patients in at least three areas: pensioners' prescriptions, hospital hotel services and visits to general practitioners.

Mr. Richard Burden: Most people will recognise that the Government have been more open in the past month and a bit than the previous Government were in 18 years. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it sounds odd for him to talk about Governments being open, as he penned a report for the previous Government in which he recommended that it would be best if no one said anything about their health policies for at least 12 months?

Mr. Maples: I expect that the Secretary of State will receive the same advice pretty soon if he goes on running health policy like this.
The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing have expressed considerable concern about these proposals. Vulnerable people up and down the country will be worried about them. Even if the Secretary of State does not think that the House deserves an explanation, patients, taxpayers and people who are worried about the proposals deserve one. Apart from the merits or otherwise of introducing these charges, such an action would be a massive breach of faith with the electorate.
There is no mention of reforms to charges in Labour's manifesto. In fact, it is very short on health service reform. It simply says:
access to it will be based on need and need alone—not on&ability to pay.
If that is all it is based on, why does not the Secretary of State deny these rumours and deny that he is even considering charges? He cannot.
Labour has spent much of the past 18 years anathematising the very idea of charges whenever they have been raised, suggested, introduced or discussed. It tried to scare the electorate into thinking that this was Conservative policy. What hypocrisy that will turn out to be if all along it was Labour that was planning to introduce charges.
I shall quote a little of the fire that has been directed at us on this subject in the past few years to show just how rich an irony this matter will prove to be if it were not so potentially damaging to vulnerable people. If the Secretary of State plans to introduce these or any other charges, there will be an elaborate diet of his own and his hon. Friends' words for eating. We want to give him a little look at the menu, because, if our suspicions prove to be correct, he will be force-fed with those words, and we will enjoy watching him eat them very slowly indeed.
I have quotes from a series of shadow Health Secretaries going back a long way, but we do not have to go back very far for the first statement. During the election, the then shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), said:
A fifth Tory term will make hospitals and GP practices profit centres".
It seems that at that time his party was thinking about doing exactly that.
Going back a little further to February 1996, the then shadow Secretary of State for Health—[Interruption.] I will give way any time a Minister wants to deny that the imposition of these charges is under consideration. In February 1996, the then shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), said of a rise in prescription charges:
This is yet another hidden tax rise, taxing people who are ill. Now people on low incomes face a cruel choice between paying through the nose or doing without vital medication.
Apparently, they will have painful choices to make in a whole lot more areas if the right hon. Gentleman gets his way.
Earlier the same month, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, said in one of his familiar attempts to scare voters about what the Conservatives were up to:
A Tory fifth term is the nightmare. Will you be paying to see a doctor? … Will they say one thing before an election, and do another afterwards?
How prescient it would have been, if the leader of the Conservative party had said that instead of the leader of the Labour party.
In a debate on these matters in 1995, a previous shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), said:
they are not just a tax but a fiscal mugging…we never have and never would use prescription charges as a tax on the sick".—[Official Report, 29 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 1130–31.]
Not unless the sick are pensioners.
The previous shadow Secretary of State for Health was the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who described the
idea of charging the sick
as a
disgraceful act".—[Official Report, 15 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 118.]
The shadow Secretary of State for Health before that was the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). This is a pretty complete record of all of them. He described the Health and Medicines Act 1987 as a "tawdry Bill", and said:
The measures are objectionable … in themselves".
It is interesting, given what is apparently being considered in the review, that the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham, who wound up that debate, said:
Will the Government ask health authorities to insist on charges for relatives who stay with a sick child in hospital? … It would be quite wrong to implement charges for relatives of children in hospital."—[Official Report, 7 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 49, 100.]
Perhaps the Government will deny that that is on the agenda.

Audrey Wise: The Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust gave evidence to the Select Committee on Health about children with cystic fibrosis who need lung transplants, which is often a suitable treatment. It stated that it was unaware of any lung transplant centre that did not levy hotel charges for mothers who stayed with their children.

Mr. Maples: I think that what is under discussion now is whether the patient will have to pay hotel charges following the review.
Those are all quotes from what the present Government said about us. It is staggering hypocrisy, in the light of what is now being considered. The truth is that not we but the Government have been considering a massive extension of charges. [Interruption.] Labour Members sigh. If they want to deny that any of those proposals is on the agenda, I shall be happy to give way to them, but until they do I think that we are entitled to assume that the proposals are on the agenda. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), nods and mutters a good deal, but yesterday he declined the opportunity to deny that sick children would be charged for hospital care.
The Government have another problem, and it is a particular problem for the Secretary of State. Ten years ago, a Labour Member of Parliament, a Frank Dobson—obviously he was nothing to do with the current Secretary of State, as they do not seem to agree on much—said in his 1987 election address:
Labour will … get rid of prescription charges.
I know that 10 years is a long time, but to go from getting rid of prescription charges to extending them is quite a jump.
The same Frank Dobson was quoted in the Morning Star. That shows how far back we are going: I do not think that he would want to be quoted in the Morning Star now. On 26 May 1987, it reported:
Forcing the sick to pay to see a doctor could become the shocking reality under a third … Tory term.
Charges to enter and stay in hospital … Frank Dobson revealed yesterday 'All Mrs. Thatcher's friends are absolutely mad on the idea.' 
It would be interesting to find out whether they are mad about the ideas that the right hon. Gentleman is now coming out with.
That was obviously based on a Department of Health press release issued a few days earlier, in which Frank Dobson said:
The Tories know that the people of this country fear for the future of the NHS. That is why they have kept under wraps the far right ideas of charging for visiting the doctor or for staying in hospital.
There we have it.
There is one more report—in The Guardian, which is a bit more respectable than the Morning Star. It reported in April 1996:
Labour's health spokesman, Mr. Frank Dobson, said: 'We will reduce prescription charges immediately with a view to abolition.
Can that be the same Frank Dobson who is now Secretary of State? Perhaps someone has been going around Holborn and St. Pancras impersonating the right hon. Gentleman, trying to make a fool of him. He was still there in 1992, however. His 1992 election address was one of those election addresses that quote constituents saying nice things, and a lady was quoted as saying:
Frank Dobson really knows what he's on about when it comes to the NHS.
Well, that lady was right. Frank certainly knew what he was on about; he just did not tell the rest of us. I imagine that she would be very surprised to realise just how much he knew, and just how little he told her.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that that pile of words would make an awfully indigestible meal for him and his friends, but I say to him honestly that I hope that he does


not have to eat it. All that he has to do is say now that there is no way in which the review will even consider those possibilities, and that he guarantees that the Government will never charge pensioners for their prescriptions, charge patients to stay in hospital or charge people to visit their general practitioners.
The right hon. Gentleman has missed all sorts of other opportunities; perhaps he will take this one. He could deny the whole story. He could still go home early. If he denies the whole story, and states categorically that he is not considering such action and that it will not happen, I promise him that we will forget the whole thing and not mention it again. I hope that he will do that, but I somehow doubt that he will. I expect that we are about to hear not an answer to our charges or an explanation of policy, but a diatribe against the last Government and their record. We have heard that a good many times.
The Labour party is now in charge, however. The Secretary of State is famous for his bluff bullying, but we shall see it—as, I suggest, will those sitting behind him—for the smokescreen that it is, designed solely to avoid living up to the responsibilities of his office. I say to him, why not make a change and rise to the occasion for once? He should speak for the Government. He should speak like a Secretary of State, and tell us and his Back Benchers that what we have said is not true.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I beg to move, as amendment to the motion, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to the historic principle of the National Health Service that if someone is ill or injured there will be a national health service to help, with access to it based on need, not on ability to pay or on who their general practitioner happens to be or on where they live; notes the steps which are being taken to end the internal market, which is unfair both to patients and staff and which has resulted in massive sums being consumed by bureaucracy; welcomes the shift of funds into patient care, including cancer treatment, instead of paperwork; and looks forward to further changes which will ensure that once again the National Health Service provides the best health services for all and is ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) on his election, and on his new job as shadow Health Secretary. I hope that he will bring to the task the honesty that he displayed in his most famous contribution to modern politics—the Maples report, which spelled out what the people thought of the Tory Government, in the hon. Gentleman's opinion. He reported to the then Prime Minister that the British people believed that what the Tories were saying was
completely at odds with their experience, which led them to conclude
that the Tories were "stupid", "out of touch" and "lying", and "didn't care"; that they had "let voters down". They had been "in government too long", were "complacent" and had
lost a sense of direction.
They had
failed to fulfil their promises".
For good measure, the hon. Gentleman also reported that people perceived the health reforms as
clumsy, and believe what doctors and nurses say about them".

How right he was. He went on to suggest that the Tories should identify what he described as some killer facts about their record, and repeat them endlessly.
I have always been one to take good advice, wherever it comes from, so I have collected some killer facts about the Tory record on health. None of what I am going to say is fiction; it is all facts—the facts about the position that we have inherited from the Tories after 18 years of Tory government.
The facts are that 59 of the 100 health authorities in England ended last year in deficit, 128 of the 429 NHS trusts ended last year in deficit, 42 health authorities were judged by the Department to have serious financial problems and 55 trusts were judged to have serious financial problems. Hospital waiting lists are at an all-time record at 1,164,000. Hospital waiting lists have increased by more than 100,000 since March last year. Waiting times are rising again, and the number of people waiting for more than 12 months has increased sevenfold since last year.
Capital investment in the NHS is at its lowest for a decade. The number of emergency operations is growing faster than the number of operations for people on the waiting list. The debt that the NHS owes its suppliers is at its highest-ever level. Prescription fraud is losing the NHS more than £85 million a year. The number of complaints to the health service ombudsman is at its highest-ever level. The Government's programme to put private finance into the NHS failed to build a single hospital, but that private finance initiative programme has cost the NHS more than £30 million in fees paid to consultants—who, moreover, did not manage to produce a single hospital.
Prescription charges are now 10 times higher in real terms than they were before the last Government came to power. The maximum dental fee is now 11 times higher than it was under the last Labour Government, and in some areas it is very difficult, if not impossible, to receive dental treatment on the NHS. Those are the facts, and there is no point in the Tories' trying to deny them. It is no good their trying to avoid the truth.
As I have discovered recently, the truth is a dangerous commodity in politics. I was found out telling the truth: I was what the shadow Secretary of State called indiscreet. What a heinous crime—a politician telling the truth. The truth that I told was that, as promised in our general election manifesto, the Labour Government were conducting, in and across each Department, comprehensive reviews
to assess how to use resources better, while rooting out waste and inefficiency".
We are organising a comprehensive review of spending by the Department of Health, the NHS and the social services departments of local authorities—and so we should when such huge sums are involved. The NHS spends £36 billion a year, about £100 million a day of taxpayers' money.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Dobson: Not yet.
I explained that the review was to be intellectually honest and thorough, and that therefore nothing was ruled out and nothing was ruled in. Of course that included charges, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the House on 11 June.

Mr. Forth: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of truth, perhaps I may give him another opportunity to indulge in the use of that commodity. On Wednesday the Prime Minister said:
We will have a national health service restored to the basic principles of the British NHS—the health service that we founded".—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 304.]
Is one of the principles of the NHS to which the Prime Minister alluded that no patient should ever be charged at the point of treatment?

Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman ought to know that there are currently charges for treatment at the point of receipt. Our election manifesto included other promises relating to the national health service. We promised:
If you are ill or injured there will be an NHS there to help…access to it will be based on need and need alone, not on your ability to pay or who your GP happens to be or where you live".
Every aspect of our spending review will be judged against those criteria. The questions will be: would a particular proposal mean that access remained based on need alone or would it mean that access became related to the ability to pay? Would the introduction or the increase of a charge put people off seeking the treatment or care that they need? We intend to keep our promises, and they are the criteria that we shall use to make judgments in the review.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State knows, because I have said it in the House, that it is perfectly proper for an incoming Government to look at Government spending and the spending of each Department. There is no argument about that. However, the debate is about the raising of money, and it would be helpful if the Secretary of State could answer a simple question. Why have the Government decided, according to what we have heard about the review, that charging is ruled in as a way to raise money for the health service while further taxes are ruled out?

Mr. Dobson: We intend to keep all our manifesto pledges, some of which relate to income tax. I know that the hon. Gentleman's party has made some manifesto pledges in the opposite direction about tax, but as we won the election we have to keep our election promises and not his.
There is no point in the Tories bleating about prescription and other charges. They increased prescription charges tenfold and top dental charges elevenfold. They pushed through the House laws that forced pensioners to pay for eye tests and dental examinations. They also failed to deal with the unfairness and the anomalies in the current charging arrangements. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has told the House, we will not ignore that unfairness and the review will look at the anomalies.
I shall give some examples of anomalies that the Conservative Government were apparently quite happy to put up with. The present exemptions from charges were agreed in 1968 but much has happened since then. There is now transplant surgery. Under the 1968 arrangements, people who needed lifelong medication were supposed to get free prescriptions, but transplant patients do not even get free prescriptions for their anti-rejection drugs. Another example is that people who receive chemotherapy for cancer and who have lost their hair can get free wigs if they are in-patients but must pay for them if they are day patients.
There is also the ridiculous case of elastic support stockings. Those who need two such stockings have to pay for two prescriptions, one for each leg. That is the anomalous charging system with which the Conservative Government were apparently quite content. As we know, that system is wide open to fraud, about which the Tory Government did next to nothing. What can one say about a system about which the official report stated that more than one pharmacist conceded that they had accepted forms from men who claimed exemption on the ground of pregnancy? That is the system that the Tory Government were happy to run and which the Tory party would like to protect.
Unlike the Conservative Government, we are prepared to take action to stop the fraud that is haemorrhaging £85 million a year from the NHS. We shall incorporate anti-theft and anti-counterfeiting devices in the printing of prescription forms. We shall have a scheme to reward pharmacies which detect stolen or counterfeit prescription forms. We are working on a new criminal offence of evading a prescription charge and on a fixed penalty for non-payment. We are examining the use of an electronic data interchange system for transferring prescription information, and we want to make more effective use of information technology by the fraud investigation unit.

Mr. Maples: Will the new criminal offence apply to people who try to get out of paying their GPs for going to see them?

Mr. Dobson: If Opposition Members who were in government, one at the Treasury and the other a Secretary of State, had done anything about fraud, this year the NHS would have £85 million more to spend on patients.
Every aspect of the NHS will be carefully examined in our comprehensive review. It will be careful and thorough and will involve Health Department officials, NHS staff and people from outside both services. I and other Ministers will be involved at all stages. As I have said, we shall judge all the propositions that are put to us against the need to keep our promise that access to the national health service will be based on need and need alone and not on the ability to pay.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Dobson: I shall finish this point before giving way.
I say to hon. Members, those in the health service and others, do not judge our review by what other people say is going into it. Judge it by what comes out of it. It is a bit like judging an operation, because it is the outcome that counts.

Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for outlining how we should judge the


review. So that we may be better informed, will he give an undertaking to publish the cost of putting right the failings that he has enunciated? Will he also publish the cost of correcting the anomalies that he identified? We need that information to judge the validity of his review. Will he supply it?

Mr. Dobson:: As I have said about three times and as I have said outside the House—causing a fracas—we shall consider everything in the review and publish such information as we think proper when we publish the outcome. I understand that every Department will publish the terms of reference of each review. That in itself will be a giant step in terms of public information about Government reviews of spending, because the Conservative Government never did that.

Mr. Forth: rose

Mr. Dobson:: I shall not give way.
I shall accept no Tory criticism of our review. The systematic way in which we are going about the review is in marked contrast to the way that the Tory Government formulated their health policy. Their reorganisation of primary care was based on advice from a Tory doctor who was a smackhead, Dr Clive Froggatt. He advised Margaret Thatcher and successive Tory Health Secretaries, ending up with the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). He told the Observer that he was taking heroin every day
shooting up before meetings with Ministers".
He added:
no-one in Westminster noticed anything wrong".
Conservative Members may be interested to know how he financed his heroin habit. He did it through prescription fraud, obtaining pure heroin in the names of dead or terminally ill patients. He ended up being convicted for fraud. Therefore, the Tories were advised on their major reorganisation of the NHS by a junkie and a fraudster. No wonder it is in such an organisational mess. No wonder we need a review.
Let me emphasise that the NHS is not going to stand still while the review is going on. We are getting on with keeping our election promises. We have already started cutting paperwork and unnecessary management costs, shifting the money instead into patient care. We have deferred the eighth round of fundholding and that has released £20 million from the NHS budget. That money has been redeployed. The first £10 million has gone into breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Another £5 million is going into improving children's intensive care.
Surely everyone has to accept that that money is better spent on women and children in need than on the paperwork of fundholding, which is where the previous Government were going to spend it.

Mr. Forth:: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Dobson:: No, I will not.

Mr. Forth:: Why not?

Mr. Dobson:: Because I do not want to. Other hon. Members want to speak and this is a short debate.
We are following that up by taking further steps to reduce the flow of invoices and other costly paperwork. To end the two-tier system, we will introduce a system of common waiting lists so that people are treated on the basis of need and need alone. That was our promise in our election manifesto and we will keep it.
With the support of clinical professionals, we are encouraging new ways of improving primary care and we are developing pilot schemes for local commissioning to take the place of fundholding and health authority contracting. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), will make an announcement about that shortly.
We have been sorting out the shambles that the Tory Government used to grace with the title "private finance initiative". They could have been prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, because they displayed no initiative and raised no finance. Far from keeping things private, they repeatedly made misleading public statements. They boasted about using the PFI to build hospitals and never built any. We will get them built using the PFI.
As our manifesto also promised, we are taking action against tobacco advertising. On 14 July, we are hosting an international summit on tobacco, which is being organised by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell). We are also keeping our promise to establish an independent food standards agency.
We have commenced a drive to reduce inequalities in health. Poor people are ill more often and die sooner, and the ultimate inequality is the difference between being alive and being dead. Under the previous Government, the words "inequalities in health" were described as politically incorrect and the only phrase that civil servants were allowed to use in the Department of Health was "variations in health". The previous Government could not even stand the truth on that.
We have established an NHS efficiency task force to root out inefficiency and to identify savings throughout the NHS. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), is reviewing long-term care for elderly people and other groups, and he is making a series of visits throughout the country to promote more and better co-operation between health authorities, trusts and local authorities.
One other major problem that we inherited was the fear of abuse and assault among staff in the health service. Recently, I went to Queen Alexandra hospital in Portsmouth, where I spoke to a nurse who had been slashed a year ago and where I was told of a pregnant woman consultant who, in the accident and emergency department, was kicked in the belly by a lout who was drunk.
We are determined to do something about that. In conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I am determined to ensure that the criminal justice system offers the maximum protection to staff and the maximum deterrent to loutish behaviour. As I have said, I give notice that people who start off by assaulting the "hello nurse" will end up in the arms of the "cheerio gaoler", and I want them to stay there for a long time.

Mr. Forth:: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I will not.


I do not have time this evening to spell out all we have been doing to change the health service, to change it for the better and—unlike the previous Government—to change it with the agreement and enthusiasm of the staff involved, but that is what we are determined to do and what we are doing.
It is nearly 50 years since the Labour Government founded the national health service, in the teeth of opposition from the Tory party. They founded it on the basis that the best health services should be available to all: that quality and equality should be available to all. Those principles were put into practice. The NHS worked—until recently—exceptionally well.
The system was fair to patients and, because of that, it was comfortable for staff to run it. It was based on need, so it was clinically sound; people were treated because they needed to be treated. It was managerially straightforward because such a system kept paperwork to a minimum. As a result of the Tory changes, the NHS developed into a two-tier system that was unfair to patients, repugnant to the staff who had to run it and managerially complex and wasteful. That is why we are ending the internal market, as we promised in our manifesto.
Next year will mark the 50th anniversary of the national health service, which has served our country so well for so long. People everywhere will want to celebrate that anniversary; so we should and so we will. We will pay tribute to the founders of the NHS and to the generations of dedicated people who have made it work, but we must resist the temptation to spend the coming year looking back.
That is not what the founders of the health service did. They looked forward. They drew on their experience of what had gone before and they married that experience to their hopes of better things to come. That is what we must do: take stock of what we have, discard what does not work and build on what does. It is our job to fashion a health service for the future—for the next 50 years.
That is what this new Labour Government will do. The NHS is in the hands of the party that founded it and that believes in it. At the end of this Parliament, the NHS will be fit for the 21st century. It will provide the best health services for all—quality and equality, the watchwords of the Labour party, old and new.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I heard an interesting speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and I expected something better from the Secretary of State for Health. After all, what he suggested—the sum of the reviews that are likely to come up—is that £80 million should be saved here and that £300 million should be saved somewhere else. Obviously, it is useful to be able to save some money, but what he has announced so far is peanuts in comparison with the NHS' s total bill, of about £43.5 billion.
The Secretary of State's words would have carried more conviction if, when he said that nothing would be ruled out, he had outlined the sort of philosophical approach that he would bring to that phrase "nothing is ruled out". I should like to suggest to him some of the things that we would expect to come out of the review.
Frankly, the Secretary of State's speech was a disgrace to the House and to the way in which we run our health service. It was based on the same old party political battle. We claim to have made some progress in the pursuit of better health standards and of an improved health service. Anyone considering the standards that we have today, with the variety of operations, surgical techniques and the rest of it, would agree that we have made enormous strides, but, despite the innovations and improvements that have been made over many years, all we have had is an attack on what was achieved by the previous Government.
Basically, the attack has been based on the concept that what was introduced when the health service first came into being in this country, the principles that motivated it and the manner in which we financed it, could not in any sense be sacrificed.
The principles are fine—a service free at the point of demand. But do the Government really expect to be able to finance the further expectations of Britain' s patients without changing the way in which those services are delivered? No country that examines the way in which we finance health care regards ours as the envy of the world. We know that, when the NHS started, patients' needs were simple compared with those of today. That is one reason why there has been such a huge escalation in costs.
The NHS had a budget of some £9 billion in 1979 when the Conservative Government took office and it is now spending £43.5 billion. Do the Government really expect to continue to meet some of their targets under the present system of financing the NHS? Do any of members of the Government believe that it can be done? Neither the Secretary of State nor his colleagues have accepted that there might be some need to reassess the financing of the NHS; on the contrary, they have consistently rubbished every achievement of the previous Government.
We know why the NHS, as financed, forces any Chancellor of the Exchequer to face up to enormous financial difficulties. First, there are more elderly people. The cost of providing care for elderly people has escalated beyond the imagination of those who founded the NHS. Secondly, the explosion of modern medical technology and diagnostic techniques has far surpassed anything that many envisaged when the NHS was introduced. Thirdly, as I have mentioned, as a consequence of the progress that has been made, expectations have risen.
Nothing that I have heard today has given me reason to believe that the Government understand that there is no point in trying to rubbish the previous Government's record at a time when there was a massive explosion in health expenditure in Britain unless nothing really is to be ruled out.
I can remember when there were cuts in the hospital building programme, not the increases that we have seen since 1979. I can remember when prescription charges were first introduced. I have seen not cuts but an increase in real terms in public expenditure on the NHS, the like of which was never achieved by a Labour Administration.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: That is rubbish. It is not true.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is not rubbish. There may have been the odd year when there were cuts. I have heard the hon. Gentleman speak on this subject, but he


well knows that no Labour Government had to face the explosion in the number of elderly people and in new technology that has occurred. Instead, the Labour Government have made a political football of the NHS.
Not one country that has sent an expert to Britain has followed our example of trying to finance the huge explosion in medical expenditure almost exclusively out of public funding. I would take more heart if the Secretary of State showed a little more humility as he approached his task, rather than trying to kid us that nothing will really change.
The right hon. Gentleman, like his predecessors, accuses us of not spending as much on health care as other countries, but he knows very well that, unlike us, other countries have not accepted that there should be a gap between private and public expenditure. They have managed to bring the private sector into the funding of their public health service, either through non-profit organisations or through private insurance and a raft of other methods. There is not the divide that exists in Britain.
I hope that, when the right hon. Gentleman comes to rule nothing out, he will examine the role of the friendly societies, the mutual societies and non-profit organisations and groups that try to run some of our hospitals. In the 19th century, they and the trade unions played their part, and they are only too willing to try to play their part today in bringing additional funding to the NHS.
Instead of denying to elderly people the right to some tax relief from the age of 60, the Government should encourage people through the tax system to take on some responsibility for their own health care. Unless people take on that responsibility, as people do in France, Holland, Spain and throughout the western world, the only way in which the needs of modern health care can be met will be through the taxpayer, and I do not believe that that will work.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that, despite the huge increase in expenditure, we face a serious problem. Britain has fewer consultants than Holland. The Government might try to discover why we go through so many GPs and why, compared with America and elsewhere in Europe, we do not have enough specialists. That is a problem that needs tackling face to face with the medical profession.
The Government might wonder why there are recruitment problems in the NHS. That might have something to do with the pay structure and doctors' working hours. They might also consider the disproportionate influx of doctors from overseas. When those doctors now in their 50s retire, the Government will have to find replacements for them. Will they come from overseas or will the Government increase expenditure on the training of medical students and attract more people to the profession? There are weaknesses in today's NHS, and I have heard nothing from the right hon. Gentleman about that.
I come now to a matter that I hope the Government will recognise deserves their attention as well as that of anyone else with an interest in the NHS. Why has the Labour party always regarded any form of health provision outside the NHS as, by definition, tainted with capitalism or private profit? That could not be further from the truth. I have here a document giving instances of how it is possible today for people, although on a

smaller scale than one would like, to give professional and financial help to the health service. It is a document written by Fabians called "Towards a More Cooperative Society: Ideas on the Future of the British Labour Movement and Independent Healthcare".
Why does the right hon. Gentleman not give some obeisance to such a document? Perhaps he wants to discard it, or perhaps it is the sort of approach that he would like to see introduced. It would have been better if he had shown some humility instead of indulging in the usual rabble rousing, saying how everything is rotten under the present system. It can be improved, and he knows how. I assume that some Labour Members believe that something of that nature can be done.
The Secretary of State for National Heritage, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), welcomed participation by the private sector. In The Times of 8 May 1996, he said:
Surely it is time to get away from the sterile battle lines of public and private and instead look to how the two can best work together in the interests of the citizen—and in the interests of all citizens, at that.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and Mr. Roger Liddell claimed in their book "The Blair Revolution":
New Labour's objective should be efficiency, diversity and innovation in the provision of public services—not privatisation for its own sake. Service providers will not necessarily be conventional private companies. They might be employee-owned or they might be co-operatives. Many will be in the voluntary sector…what is most desirable is the emergence of a new generation of 'social entrepreneurs'.
In other words, the distinction between private and public becomes irrelevant. That, I hope, is part of the thinking that leads the Secretary of State for Health to say that nothing is ruled out.
How encouraging it would be if, some months from now, after this comprehensive review, the right hon. Gentleman came back to the basic principle and the Labour party turned its back on the old-fashioned socialist dogma, according to which the health service can be safe in its hands only if it is financed almost exclusively by the taxpayer. I hope that the Labour party will come to accept the spirit behind the reforms that have been introduced slowly and steadily—too slowly, in my opinion—by the previous Government.
If that is the message that comes forth today, although I doubt it, I hope that it will be the first important step in taking the health service out of the rows that we have in politics today, and that confuse patients and people who work in the medical profession. They hate being made into a political football. I hope that, in the next few months, that will end.

Dr. Howard Stoate: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. I am pleased to be given the opportunity to speak on a subject that is of concern to my constituents and about which I have received many letters. I also have relevant experience of the subject in that, until the good people of Dartford elected me on 1 May, I was a full-time, non-fundholding general practitioner in the national health service. I know first hand how important it is to patients that the NHS is there to help them.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his eloquent statement on how the NHS will be safeguarded and, indeed, improved under his stewardship. However, as this is my maiden speech, I should like to begin by paying tribute to my predecessors as Members of Parliament for Dartford since 1945 before making my substantive points.
Norman Dodds was elected in the landslide victory of 1945, which many thought would never be repeated—until the night of 1 May this year. In 1955, Sydney Irving began his first term as the Member of Parliament for Dartford. He was a good friend of mine and a colleague on Dartford borough council. I have followed his example in holding the position of chair of finance on the council and now as Member of Parliament for Dartford.
Sydney was loved and respected in Dartford. He was also admired in the House as a kind and intelligent parliamentarian. He rose to become a Deputy Speaker, before his defeat in 1979 when he became Lord Irving and moved to another place.
My immediate predecessor was Bob Dunn, who held the seat for 18 years from 1979. He held office as a junior Minister in the Conservative Government and served on the executive of the 1922 Committee. He was well respected in Dartford as a hard-working constituency Member of Parliament who always did his best for the people he served. I know that he took a close interest in many of the problems that were brought to him, and I hope to emulate his example and work hard for the people I serve.
Bob Dunn boasted in his election address that he had written more than 60,000 letters on behalf of his constituents during the time that he was in office. As well as seeking to help his constituents, I am sure that that was a valiant effort on his part to support the paper industry in Dartford, which has existed since Britain's first commercially successful paper industry was built in the town as long ago as 1588.
That brings me to the history of Dartford, which is probably best known as the southern end of the tunnel and bridge crossings that carry the M25 across the Thames. Dartford is, however, centred on the crossing of another river, the Darent. It was an important post on one of the earliest Roman roads to be built in Britain. Watling street joins London to the coast and continues to be the name of a major artery through the town.
Dartford continues to develop and there are still indications, in the forms of buildings and street names, of many of the ages in which the town thrived. The manor of Dartford was the source of taxes amounting to £82.12s, according to the Domesday book. I am sure that that compares favourably with the council tax that I set with my colleagues earlier this year, and I am convinced that the Labour council provides better services for the people of Dartford than they would have received in the 11th century.
The constituency is diverse and extends from the industrial banks of the Thames to the villages of rural Kent. The town reflects that diversity and looks two ways from its position between London and the coast. It is 15 miles from London, and many people commute to work in the City. It is also at the heart of the Thames gateway, which is the link to Europe from many parts of the country.
Dartford has a history as a centre for innovation. Richard Trevithick, famous for inventing the first railway locomotive, lived and worked in the town. He came to Dartford to work for a company that continues to have a prominent place in the town—J. and E. Hall Ltd. The tradition of innovation and commercial success continues to the present day with the presence of a major plant of Glaxo Welcome. Dartford is also the home of Electrosonics, a company at the forefront of technology in lighting and audio-visual displays.
Amid this wealth of industry and commerce, Dartford can also claim to be a centre of culture. As well as its own theatre—the Orchard—Dartford was the home of Mick Jagger, who was educated at one of the constituency's schools. He now has a performing arts centre named after him.
I now move on to the subject of the debate—charging for NHS care. As a full-time GP until the election on 1 May, I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of a thorough and wide-ranging review of the national health service. It has been a major backbone of the welfare state since its inception in 1948, and I believe that it still offers the best system of health care in the world. However, it is overdue for review.
One of my particular concerns—a point touched on by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—relates to the inconsistencies among the various exemptions from prescription charges. Let us consider the example of two patients whom I have treated personally. They have both suffered from asthma for many years and have always had to pay for their drugs on prescription. One of them has since developed hypothyroidism and, as a result, has become exempt from prescription charges—not just for her thyroid disease but for the drugs required for her asthma treatment. The other has developed hyperthyroidism and now suffers the double cost of paying for the drugs to treat that condition while continuing to pay for drugs for her asthma.
There is some logic in the history of this anomaly, in that replacement therapies are generally exempt from charges, whereas treatments for conditions of excess are not. As hon. Members are painfully aware, one usually pays for one's excesses sooner or later, and that philosophy certainly holds true for drugs. However, this rationale has been blurred by time, and conditions such as epilepsy and fistulae, neither of which involves replacement therapy, attract exemptions. Those differences are difficult to comprehend, and I know from experience that they anger patients who cannot understand why treatment is, or is not, exempt. GPs and pharmacists find it hard to explain and administer a system that is, at best, outdated and inconsistent and, at worst, unfair and that clearly penalises some people.
Multiple prescription charges are also a problem for patients. Hormone replacement therapy is an example. It is an increasingly popular therapy, being effective for both the treatment and prevention of disease. Women on HRT suffer less osteoporosis in later life. As well as decreasing the personal suffering of women who have fewer fractures as a result of that treatment, it saves significant sums for the NHS by reducing the number of women who need hospital treatment for fractured hips.
A number of different drug regimens is available, and different types suit different women. It is important for the patient and her doctor to identify the correct one if the


HRT is to be effective. For sound medical reasons, some of these therapies require the prescription of one drug, while others require a combination of two. Simply as a result of an appropriate, but different, type of HRT required, one woman can face charges twice those facing another.
Despite the exemptions for pensioners and people on benefits, I have too often been asked by patients to advise them which of two or three items prescribed they should obtain as they cannot afford more than one prescription charge. That presents a great dilemma for health professionals who have prescribed drugs in accordance with their best abilities but are asked to judge which would be the most appropriate for the patient. That is obviously second best and unsatisfactory.
The anomalies which I have mentioned have existed for many years and were not adequately addressed by the previous Government. The increases in prescription charges have not helped. At this point, I beg to differ with my right hon. Friend. In fact, prescription charges have risen from 20p in 1979 to £5.65 this year—an increase of 2,825 per cent., which is well above the increase in inflation for that period. According to my research, an increase based on inflation would leave prescription charges at slightly less than 60p today.
I welcome the proposed review and the commitment of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health to care provided on the basis of clinical need, not on the ability to pay.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate). There has been a great influx of medics to the House. I am surrounded by them on our Benches. There are others on the Government Benches, although I am not sure whether there are any on the Conservative Benches. I am glad that there are some of us lay people left.
The hon. Member for Dartford and I are linked by one esoteric political fact that he may not know. By sweeping away his immediate predecessor, he joins the citizens of my borough, who swept the same predecessor away from Southwark borough council, where he was previously a Conservative councillor. That is now pretty well a no-go area for Tories. As part of the progressive movements in the south-east of England, I share some of his delight and wish him well. Dartford always strikes me as having a dilemma, not knowing whether it is outer London or deepest Kent, or something between. 1 have been there periodically and I am sure that it will benefit from his assiduous representation here. I hope that he enjoys his time here greatly.
During the general election campaign, members of the Labour party claimed that pensions would not be safe with the Tories. They wanted people to believe that, as the present Prime Minister said,
A vote for the Tories is a vote to get rid of the state pension.
They were wrong. That was an unfair and disreputable allegation that was not founded on facts, but it unjustifiably frightened people. Today we are dealing with another allegation—that the Labour Government are thinking of charging people for a range of health service functions.
The difference between the allegation about the state pension being at risk under the Tories and that about charging in the national health service is that this one does not come from the Opposition, but is based on a Government statement. Today's debate is self-induced by the Government. The issue is on the agenda because the Government put it there, telling the country that they were going to have a review of charges in the national health service. The Government may not like the choice of subject for the first Opposition day debate, but it is their fault.
It is also a paradox that the Conservative party should choose the NHS as the subject of its first attack on the Labour party.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Why not?

Mr. Hughes: Because for a long time, certainly until about three years ago, the NHS was not regarded as safe in the hands of the Tory party. Lady Thatcher's actions gave no great credibility to the claim that the health service would be safe in Tory hands. To his credit, her successor as Prime Minister tried hard to ensure that the NHS was seen to be as strongly supported and cared for by the Tories as by other parties.
Although there were many reasons for us to criticise the Tory Government on health—the two-tier system, the differing speed of treatment depending on who a patient's general practitioner was and the differing access to the health service depending on where a patient lived—I have never alleged that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) sought to do other than to preserve the NHS as a service paid for through taxation, or that he intended to privatise it. That was another unjustifiable allegation.
I did not know the precise date until my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) went round the corner just now to check, but I can now confirm that it was on 10 May 1951—seven days before I was born—that the then Labour Government passed
An Act to authorise the making and recovery of charges in respect of certain dental and optical appliances under the National Health Service Act, 1946, and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947".
There have been charges in the NHS since the first post-war Labour Government. They were fought about in the post-war Labour party, but in the end the Labour Government introduced both the facility to charge and some charges. Of course they have been extended. They were supported and retained by the Labour Government in the 1970s and then extended again—in our view unacceptably—by the Tory Government under Lady Thatcher, who introduced charges for dental checks and optical tests for people who wanted to check whether they needed treatment.
Let us strip away the pretence. There have been charges in the health service since its inception. That is why it is perfectly proper for a new Government to consider charges. As one of the authors of the health section of our manifesto and a member of our policy committee, I made sure that our policies on health were worded correctly. We had a manifesto commitment at the election to freeze prescription charges, but then to review them. There are clearly all sorts of anomalies in the system of prescription charges. I have been in Committees that have addressed the matter, but never dealt with it.
Having also considered charges for eye tests and dental checks, we went into the election with the clear view that, on balance, they ought to go. People understood that we made a costed commitment to abolish charges for dental and eye checks. There may be a debate about whether that was right, but we carried out a review and came to that conclusion.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I want to draw my hon. Friend's attention to an interesting answer to a written question that I received today, which is relevant to the debate. Does he agree that eye test charges deter people from taking the opportunity of having a regular eye check and therefore from gaining the health benefit that they would derive from it, and that free eye tests are a sound investment in preventive health care? Does he therefore share my surprise that, in the written answer that I received today, Ministers admitted that they have not even drawn up the terms of reference for a review of eye test charges and that no research has been commissioned? That seems strange.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the charges should be ended now, not later? More than 500,000 people over the age of 60 are not having regular eye tests. They are running the risk of losing their sight and will cost the health service far more as a consequence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I remind the House that interventions must be brief and to the point.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend was getting carried away by the novelty of being able to make an intervention, but his point was valid. [HON. MEMBERS: "But long-winded."] No. He was referring to a ministerial answer. I do not know and the Minister on the Front Bench now may not know precisely what the Chancellor will say next week. Indeed, I hope for his sake that he does not, because such matters are meant to be kept in the Treasury. However, the Chancellor has the option to deal with some of those matters next week.
One of the valid criticisms of the Government's review is that it appears to have no terms of reference apart from the generic phrase, "Nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out." There is a problem with that—it is not true. Of course it is appropriate to review spending in the NHS. I sought to put that point to the Secretary of State earlier and the Minister knows that I share his view. Money may be wastefully spent on all sorts of things, although I believe that the NHS is pretty well squeezed down because the Tory Government required it to cut costs year on year. However, we are talking not about expenditure but about raising revenue, and I have to tell Ministers on the Treasury Bench that they are different things.
Revenue is raised for the health service traditionally from only two sources—taxes or charges. I am not aware that significant amounts of money come in in any other way. The NHS can of course sell land if it is surplus to requirements and charge for private services that it contracts out, but the fundamental sources of revenue are taxes and charges. So today we need to hear where the Government stand on both those things. Sadly, and unfortunately for the Government, they have fudged the issue on both.
The argument is made even easier for Opposition Members. When the Labour party was in opposition only a year ago, it knew the score as well as it knows the score now. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said in the Budget debate last November:
a year after the general election"—
he was looking at the Red Book for the coming year—
we find that spending on health is set to be reduced in real terms.… It is abundantly clear in the Red Book that public spending on the health service is due to be reduced in real terms."—[Official Report, 3 December 1996; Vol. 286, c. 896.]
The present Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, said earlier in the Budget debates:
the Department of Health's actual total spending in the year after next … will in fact fall by 0.7 per cent."—[Official Report, 26 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 176.]
If that was true then, to some of us it was bizarre that, until about a week before the election campaign began, the Labour party was committed to spending on the health service that was below even that of the then Tory Government. In a belated conversion—in Essex, if I remember correctly—the present Chancellor decided that he would up the amount of tax and spending to which the Labour party was committed to the same as that to which the Tories were committed. It is clearly not enough.
I do not believe that hon. Members from any party will find a single constituent who believes that a projected increase in health service spending of 0.2 per cent. per year for the next two years is enough when we have had 3 per cent. per year for the past five years. So someone has to grasp the nettle and say that more money must be collected from somewhere. It is no good waiting until the year after the year after next.
We have a deficit this year in the health service of about £300 million. The Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), has admitted it. He asked the questions when he was shadowing the health team in the previous Government.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): No.

Mr. Hughes: I shall give way to the Minister if he wishes. The figures on trusts and authorities at the end of the last financial year show a deficit of £300 million. If the Minister wants to correct me, I stand to be corrected. There has been a cumulative pattern. In the past few years, by all sorts of funny dealings, health authorities and trusts have had to borrow against the money ahead of them to keep themselves afloat. They have a duty to balance their budgets. That money could be found now and the debts could be paid off, but it can be found only from charges or from taxes.
My colleagues and I have said today, as we said before the election, that the money ought to be found by increasing taxes. Even if the Government want to hold to their commitment not to increase income tax, when the Chancellor comes to the House next week, he ought to find other taxes by which he can raise money for the health service. We offered to the Government and we offer them again the suggestion of an increase in employers' national insurance contributions, so that everything given to an employee as a perk as opposed to salary is chargeable. That would raise about £250 million


according to Treasury figures and more than £300 million according to our figures. The Government could put extra tax on cigarettes. According to the last Government figures, 5p on a packet of cigarettes produced about £200 million. That could make free dental and eye checks available again.
I am not telling the Chancellor to do either of the specific things that I have suggested, but the immediate need is not for the end-product of a review with no terms of reference, but to bring some money into the health service. If that does not happen, the Government can have a wonderful review. They can save money and in two or three years we may get the benefit of those savings. But the review will not benefit now the people who are waiting for 18 months between seeing a consultant and being treated. It will not deliver for the many people who are not being treated by the NHS today.
Another nonsense was again confirmed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury the other day. There was a bit of a wobble in the Government at the weekend because it looked for a while as if they might change their position. Even if Government policy is successful—I hope that it is—and the social security bill goes down and more people go back to work—I hope that they do—we shall not be able to transfer the money saved from the Department of Social Security to the Department of Health. That is lunacy. Even if one is being the iron Chancellor and saying that the Government will not increase public expenditure overall above the Tory planned levels, it is nonsense not to be willing to spend the £30 million, £40 million or £50 million saved from one Department when people are knocking at the door of another.
I remember when the Prime Minister said that Labour would never put dogma before children's education. I ask the Minister to pass on personally, before Wednesday, my request to the Prime Minister and to the Chancellor that they should say that Labour will never put dogma before patients' health. It is dogma, and dogma alone, which prevents the Labour party from saying to the House, "We have inherited certain conditions, but patients and youngsters at school are the priority for the country, and we must produce some more money for them." Political U-turns can be popular. To say that one is wrong and to change before it is too late is better done early, before the winter comes and people are waiting on trolleys, and the Government find themselves under attacks similar to those made against the previous Government. I hope that the Government undertake that change.
I have a few questions that relate to where the necessary money will come from. The Government have made an honourable commitment to reduce the number of people on waiting lists by 100,000. How will we know when that is achieved? If the waiting lists go up by 500,000, will the Government then say, "Ah, that figure should have been 600,000." We need a few rules to judge how Government money will reduce the waiting list by 100,000 people.
The Government have also said that they will get rid of the Tory internal market. The Minister knows that I share his view about that, but I want to know when and how it will be possible for the constituents of Southwark, Darlington, Dartford and all the rest to receive the same treatment from their GPs, irrespective of whether they are fundholders.
There is also the mystery about the private finance initiative. First of all the Government said that they were against it, then they were for it and now they do not know. Eventually, the Government will have to come up with a clear view about a proper policy of public-private partnership in the health service. I am absolutely convinced that the Minister does not think that the PFI is wonderful, although I know that he will have to let a couple of schemes through on the nod, because some are banging at the door to be agreed. We must have a stable system that provides secure finance for capital expenditure in the health service, and that will not achieved by the PFI.
As for charges, I want to put my cards on the table. The Government have quoted their manifesto commitment, so let me do the same:
Labour commits itself anew to the historic principle: that if you are ill or injured there will be a national health service there to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone—not on your ability to pay, or on who your GP happens to be or on where you live.
That pledge has some significant implications. It means that the Government should rule out now that people would be charged to see their GP or hospital doctor. If one was charged, by definition the NHS would be governed by payment at the point of access, and would not be free.
The Government have also not addressed what will' happen to a person who needs a particular drug, which he normally has to pay for on prescription. According to the Labour manifesto statement, if that person has a clinical need or a health need for that drug, it should be free. According to the press release of 13 June, the Labour party pledged that NHS care would be available to all according to need and would be free at the point of use.
If the NHS was bizarre enough to plan for someone to stay on a water bed in a five-star hotel while waiting for an operation, there is all the difference in the world between charging for that, which has nothing to do with health need, or charging for cosmetic treatment in terms of the surgery involved or the appliances used—again, nothing to do with health need—and charging people for things that they need because of a clinical condition. That is the test.
We believe that the Labour Government should have been able to say that there would a review of spending and charging, but that they had some principles to which they would adhere. They should make it clear now that they will not charge for the health care that the NHS provides, because that will be funded by taxation.
We thought about those matters before the election. I agree with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples): the Labour party has had 18 years to think about what it would do when in government and, having arrived after 18 years' preparation, it is a bit thin, weak and inadequate for it to come to the country and say, "We know there is a problem and we know we need the money, but we haven't got a clue yet about how we're going to raise it." That just ain't no answer. It really is inadequate.
Two thirds of my constituents are on welfare benefits; 25 per cent. are out of work; and I probably represent fewer people with private health care—apart from those in the new riverside developments—than any other Member of Parliament. My constituents are troubled by


the thought that the Labour party has not sorted out its line on those matters and is now introducing an agenda item that had not previously been thought of.
In conclusion, I offer the Minister some suggestions. Tell the Chancellor to raise some taxes in the Budget next week. For example, about £500 million would be relatively painless, and I gave two suggestions earlier on how that could be done. Fund a moratorium on London and outside London reductions in service, so that we can see what is going on before planning what we do next. [Interruption.] I am asked how much that would cost; the answer is that it would cost about £185 million. Merge trusts in the many places around the country where separate community and acute trusts are not needed and we shall save a lot of money.
Move as the Government want to do, but as quickly as possible, to five-year contracts between trust and health authority. Replace local with national pay bargaining and establish a single pay review body. Collect the money from the private sector to cover the cost of training all the people who have left the NHS—private companies have never been charged the full cost of that. Implement the recommendations of the Select Committee on Health, on fair distribution of resources around the country. Look broadly at private finance options, but do not limit that to the PFI. Finally, the Government should put their hands up and admit that there will always be rationing in the health service—it is a matter not of whether, but of how.
This month, it is every commentator's comment that the Labour party is wrong to think of reviewing charges but not of raising taxes. Labour has come to government with very modest commitments on health—they are far too modest and they are inadequate to the task. A review of charging that rules nothing in and nothing out without facing the real issue of raising money through taxes—which is the way in which the NHS should be funded—will not just disappoint the Government's supporters. It might, as it did for the Canadian Government when they did the same, result in a much speedier ejection from office than this Government bargained for.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to make my maiden speech this evening. I must begin by apologising to the Opposition for using a short period of the Supply day in order to obey the normal conventions governing such speeches. I hope that I will be forgiven for that.
In connection with those conventions, I want to introduce myself as the Member of Parliament for Hemel Hempstead. Of the four people who have been closely associated with the seat, three still have the distinction of serving in the House. One is the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page). Of the two others, one sits on the Opposition Benches and the other on the Government Benches. The one on this side is my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), and many people in my constituency still think that he is their Member of Parliament.
My immediate predecessor was Robert Jones, who served with great distinction on environmental matters. In 1986, he produced a Bill to preserve hedgerows; he was 
Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment; and he later served as a Minister at the Department of the Environment. I pay tribute to his work in that connection and, as a member of various environmental organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, I hope to be able to continue his work. I particularly want hedgerows to be preserved, even if they contain somewhat fewer than seven separate identifiable species of leaf, which seems to me to be still too little protection. My predecessor served for 14 years, and I believe it would be fair to say that he was rather surprised by the general election result, but that is the way that things go in politics.
My constituency is called Hemel Hempstead, but it includes quite a lot of countryside around the new town that gives it its name. That countryside includes the Ashridge National Trust property, which I believe to be one of the few areas in the south of England that is owned by the National Trust. If one flies over the constituency, one gets a strong sense of greenery and of rural atmosphere.
There are villages in the north: Great Gaddesden and Little Gaddesden—in the British way, the latter is larger than the former—Markyate and Flamstead. In the south of the constituency is Kings Langley, which the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire used to represent and which I now do.
In the east of the constituency is the M1—most people only see the sign and zoom straight by—near Leverstock Green, where there is long-standing evidence of Roman settlements.
The major part of the constituency is Hemel Hempstead, a new town which has been fantastically successful. It is a great tribute to the concept of planning—the concept that each community in the town could have a green area for recreation and that good-quality housing could be provided for people who were being moved away from the devastation that had been caused by the second world war.
The town has running through it one of the longest stretches of canal in my constituency. I should very much like to see a major improvement in transport which might put Hemel Hempstead more prominently on the map.
To come to health matters, within that town is a hospital. The hospital is badly located, as so many hospitals are. Access to the general hospital is difficult; but it would not be difficult if a very short section of road were constructed from the A414, across a field that was long ago nominated for the purpose.
I have heard much from Opposition Members about how we might get additional funds into the health service, but I note that, in today's edition of The Times, it is suggested that the windfall tax proposed by the Government might be interpreted much more generously than has been thought.
I have taken the opportunity to suggest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) that my link road—very short, very cheap—would enable people to develop skills, that the revenue implications in future years would be very insignificant, and that that road might be used as part of that programme. After all, if young people must work, they must work on something, so why not a road to my hospital?
Perhaps in future we shall be more imaginative about the ways in which we raise funds than the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has 

suggested. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions about my road, but I have not yet had a reply. I suspect that I shall not have one until after Wednesday 2 July, and in many ways this debate seems extremely premature, because we do not know what the funding arrangements will be.
The other aspect of my local hospitals is closed wards. Fifty-six beds are being pulled out of service. The local NHS trust has a deficit of £2.5 million, and the health authority has a reputed deficit of £10 million. That is the local variation of our inheritance from the Conservatives.
It is often felt that, when the Conservatives were in government, they wanted a system that meant that, if one could afford to go private, one would be cosseted and looked after, but, if one went into the public sector, one would have to make do with a really bad system. The idea was that as many people as possible who had the money would remove their custom from the public to the private sector.
Wards are closed for all sorts of reasons—sometimes for refurbishment. The closure of our wards means that older people are denied access to them, and paediatric provision is being cut. The fact is that wards are usually closed for lack of money.
It is therefore right to ask whether we are ingenious and committed enough to halt the decline in services which is our inheritance from the Opposition. I really hope that ways will be found to provide my general hospital with proper access, so that it can flourish and people can go there secure in the knowledge that they will be treated properly. I hope that they will not find, on turning a blind corner, a place full of dust and decay. They should not be worried about leaving sick relatives there.
We have a long way to go, and I hope that the new Government will approach the funding of the health service with a different and better philosophy, based on co-operation and a great deal more commitment to caring for the health of those who cannot be treated in the private sector.

9 pm

Mrs. Theresa May: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on an excellent maiden speech and on having spoken without notes. That is a brave move in the House—almost as brave as asking Ministers for money to be spent in his constituency.
During the short time I have been in the House, the mantra consistently heard from Ministers has been that they are doing whatever they are doing because it was in the manifesto. One might applaud that apparent commitment to the manifesto, were it not for the fact that Ministers have just as consistently turned their backs on the manifesto and broken their election promises. Take, for instance, the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill, which does not release local government's capital receipts, but merely increases borrowing. The assisted places scheme is being abolished, but no extra money is going into primary schools to reduce class sizes.
Nowhere has this disregard for election commitments and manifesto promises been so callous as in the subject under debate tonight, the national health service. Time

and again, before and during the election, the Labour party told us, and the electorate, that, if the Conservatives got back into government, the future of the NHS would be dire; but, if Labour got in, everything would be rosy. Suddenly, it was claimed, all the problems in the NHS would be solved: the electorate could trust the Labour party with the NHS.
Labour's manifesto has already been quoted by several hon. Members, but I make no apology for quoting it again. It is important to remember exactly what it said:
Labour commits itself anew to the historic principle: that if you are ill or injured there will be a national health service there to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone—not on your ability to pay".
Yet, a few weeks after the election, the new Secretary of State for Health announces that there will be a review, with no holds barred. Everything is on the agenda:
We are ruling nothing out".
When asked specifically about charges for seeing a GP, he said:
You can't pick bits out of it. We are going to look at everything.
Today, the Secretary of State said that he was paying the price for telling the truth. He cannot, however, have it both ways. Either the Labour election manifesto was telling the truth or the Secretary of State is. The statement that access to the NHS will be based on need and need alone, not ability to pay, is incompatible with the Secretary of State's refusal to rule out charges for pensioners' prescriptions, stays in hospital, or visits to the GP. I challenge the Government to tell us which we should believe: the Labour party manifesto or the Secretary of State for health?
In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State gave some insight into the review, but it did not amount to much. He said that the criterion against which the proposed charges would be judged was whether access would be related to ability to pay or whether people might be put off using the national health service. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, charging people for visiting a GP is entirely inconsistent with that criterion.
It is open to the Minister who will respond to the debate to state clearly that he accepts what is in the manifesto—that access will be based on need, not on ability to pay—and recognises that, as both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members have pointed out, charging people to visit a GP is contrary to the principles set out in the Labour party manifesto. Will he put our minds at rest tonight by saying that there will be no charges for hospital stays, access to GPs or prescriptions for pensioners?
It is a simple matter. The Labour party manifesto sets out principles for the national health service. Either the Government believe in those principles or they do not. If they believe in them, they should rule out the three possibilities of charges that are raised in the motion, because they are clearly incompatible with the principles set out in the manifesto. I urge them to give a commitment tonight, not only to Opposition Members but to Government Back Benchers and people who are extremely worried by statements that they have heard from the Secretary of State for Health on those issues.
Last Friday, this issue hit the front page of the Maidenhead Advertiser, the main paper in my constituency—[HON. MEMBERS: "A very important


paper."] Absolutely. Labour Members may scoff, but the issue hit the front page because of the significant number of my constituents who will be affected if pensioners are charged for prescriptions.
My constituents are extremely worried, and they want to know why a Labour Government who, in opposition, said that the health service was safe in their hands, and claimed that the Conservative party was a threat to pensioners' access to the health service and to pensioners' way of life, were now considering charging pensioners for prescriptions, and had gone back on statements made during the election and in their manifesto.
I have often heard Labour Members say that the Government will govern in fairness. Is it fair to worry pensioners by refusing to rule out the possibility of those charges? Is it fair to charge pensioners for prescriptions? Is it fair to charge a mother for taking her sick child to a GP?
The answer lies in the hands of those on the Government Front Bench tonight. It is simple. The Government say that they are sticking by their election manifesto. If they believe in the principle set out in the manifesto—that access to the national health service should be based on need, not on ability to pay—the Minister should stand up tonight and rule out the possibility of charges for prescriptions for pensioners, charges for stays in hospital and charges for visits to the GP. That is what people want to hear from the Government. If they believe their own manifesto, that is the commitment that they will give the House tonight.

Mr. Harold Best: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my first contribution to this honourable House by participating in the debate.
Tradition has it that I should comment about my constituency and my predecessor. I can do both with considerable pleasure. My predecessor was Keith Hampson, whom I got to know fairly well. By common consent of all in the constituency, he was a good constituency Member of Parliament. He worked on behalf of his constituents, and he also played an important role on behalf of his party. He supported the Government most of the time, I understand, while maintaining that critical faculty which is essential for any self-respecting, active politician.
As an opponent in the recent general election, Keith Hampson's behaviour was both warm and proper. I am truly grateful for the way in which he behaved, and I have fond memories of him. In short, he was a good man, and, I am pleased to say, remains a good man. I look forward to seeing him again, but not in this place.
My constituency, Leeds, North-West, is a wonderful mixture of places and people. It runs from an inner-city area known locally as Hyde Park, out to the beautiful lower Wharfedale. In the lower part of lower Wharfedale, it encompasses the lovely little town of Otley, which is picturesque but extremely hard-working. The constituency is a fine mixture of industrial and urban life, and rural idyll.
The constituency manages to mix high technology in the electrical engineering industry—the production of precision electrical switchgear—with a successful farming industry. Sadly, there is also considerable unemployment in the inner-city part, and other associated problems.
We have in the constituency the greater part of two large universities. Living in a particular area are 35,000 students, who have not been without significant influence on the electoral process. Given their recent voting pattern, I hope that that remains so. I am one of the few candidates who moved from third place in the constituency to first place.
We also have two large hospitals in the constituency. Wharfedale general hospital is an extremely successful general hospital. It provides exactly the kind of services needed from a general hospital and, in addition to serving the health needs of the people of Wharfedale, it provides 600 jobs, which is not insignificant in a rural area.
Cookridge hospital specialises in radiotherapy treatment. It helps thousands of people from all over the area, as far and wide as Newcastle and Sheffield. It is seen largely as a regional hospital treating cancer patients.
In recent years, those fine hospitals have been under a cloud of uncertainty and anxiety about their future. We have tried to resolve the matter within the constituency. People need to know that hospital services will be available when they need them. It is a question not just of the services being freely available, but of their being available when they are needed.
There are serious doubts about the continued operation of Wharfedale hospital. A review has been conducted, and we have tried to obtain the results. During the review process, the representatives of various management levels attended public meetings, and assured all concerned that they would soon know about the proposals.
Although we have addressed the appropriate questions to the appropriate levels, we are none the wiser. Most people believe that the problem lies with the last few years of Conservative government. When we have received replies from management, I have been reminded of the American President Calvin Coolidge in the early part of the century, of whom it was said:
He didn't say much but, when he did, he didn't say much.
That is the kind of response that we have received from Tory Ministers and the layers of hospital management with which we have had to deal.
It is not that local people have not made an effort: town and district councillors have campaigned on behalf of the hospital, and petitions have been organised. However, the deafening silence continues. Otley town council enlisted the assistance of a local employer, and located a large plot of land. The council and that employer may be able to find the funding necessary to develop a private finance initiative project. However, we have received no response from Government—until now.
It seems that the future of Wharfedale was taken seriously by everyone except the Tory Government and the hospital administration. I am pleased to see that that situation has changed. I have written to my right hon. Friend about the issue, and I have already received a reply. We are looking forward to the conclusion of further developments that will bring light and hope to my area. We are certain that the review's findings will be positive.
The Cookridge hospital is also under threat, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will hear about that in the near future. We look forward to the implementation of Labour's manifesto promises. There must be an end to waiting lists for cancer surgery and an improvement in the diagnostic systems available to women suffering from


breast cancer. The people of Leeds, North-West, whom I am pleased to represent, voted for many things in the election: not least for a one-class—a first-class—health service that is available to all people in their time of need. My right hon. Friend has reiterated those promises tonight, and I look forward to seeing them delivered in my area.

Mr. Tim Loughton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) on his eloquent maiden speech and thank him for his kind words about his predecessor, Keith Hampson. The hon. Gentleman is truly privileged to represent a constituency in God's county.
I congratulate other hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches tonight. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) referred to Robert James. I agreed with the hon. Gentleman about hedgerows and driving up the M 1. However, when he spoke of the Conservative Government's treatment of a hospital in his constituency, my foot remained on the accelerator and I continued along the Ml.
I should also mention the exceedingly eloquent contribution of the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate). It must be satisfying to be able to contribute to a debate on a subject in which one has professional knowledge and for which one has trained. Alas, for my part, I decided it was politic not to wait for a debate on Mesopotamian architecture before I pitched in with my contribution. If the hon. Gentleman's skills as a doctor match his skills as an orator, he must have a healthy bunch of constituents.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) rightly said that it was ironic that the Opposition are using the first opportunity presented to them to attack the Government on the words that they are using about the national health service.
The Secretary of State made an interesting and informative speech: alas, that was not this evening and not in the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman has, of course, brought the debate upon himself by the words that he has uttered recently. It is ironic that only a few weeks ago the electorate faced the scam of a manifesto that, in effect, carried the banner, "We shall save the NHS". Appalling scaremongering about the NHS went with that. With indecent haste, the "Save the NHS" banner has become "Let's save the NHS a lot of money" by introducing charges never contemplated by the Conservative Government.
The Secretary of State promises one of the now legendary Government reviews. We are promised that it will be a no-holds-barred review. The right hon. Gentleman says, "We are counting nothing in and nothing out." That hokey-cokey approach to election pledges is symptomatic of the steamroller approach that is characteristic of the Government's early days.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, repeatedly invited the Secretary of State to deny that the Government have any intention of introducing the charges to which I have referred and to say that they are counting the fundamental tenets of the NHS out of their review. Those tenets include free-at-the-point-of-access care and other fundamental beliefs on which Conservatives have run the NHS for most of the century.
The Secretary of State refused to rule out the possibility that the Government are considering introducing charges for hotel accommodation. The right hon. Gentleman refused also to rule out the introduction of charges for interviews with general practitioners. He refused again, most markedly for my constituency, which has the highest proportion of pensioners in the country, to rule out the prospect of charging pensioners for prescriptions.

Helen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Loughton: I shall continue. There is not long before the Front Bench spokesmen respond to the debate.
A few years back, the Secretary of State, as he now is, said:
The Tories know that the people of this country fear for the future of the NHS. That is why they have kept under wraps the far right ideas of charges for visiting the doctor or for staying in hospital.
Far right—that is scary stuff. The Labour party has come a long way.
I take up the issue of charges for interviews with GPs. In West Sussex generally we have a fine reputation for GP fundholders. Over two thirds of GP practices in the county are fundholding practices. I spent much time with skilled fundholders. I sat in surgeries and watched pensioners come in and go out.
In one surgery, which I have visited many times, an elderly patient saw the doctor about some growths on his wrist. It is a common ailment for elderly people. The doctor asked him, "Can you come back tomorrow? I shall do it then." The patient, who lived just up the road, was able to return 24 hours later and have the growths removed under local anaesthetic by his own GP, one of more than 80 per cent. of GPs who are qualified to perform minor surgery. That cost a fraction of what it would have cost to send him to the nearby Worthing hospital, where he would have been put on a waiting list and have had to wait months for that treatment. Will such treatment be liable for charges? Is there any incentive for that person and many like him to go to such a local community hospital GP fundholder practice to be cured of minor ailments? I contend that there is no incentive.
West Sussex is already penalised by not having a fair share of the NHS funding cake, especially in the Worthing district. The prospect of pensioners having to pay for prescriptions is already causing untold worry to many of my constituents. The issue has appeared on the front pages of my local press, as it did in the local newspaper of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). Under the previous Government, more than 82 per cent. of prescriptions were free, and the number of NHS treatments that registered a charge declined, so that they accounted for less than 2 per cent. of overall NHS funding. That is a worthy record of declining charges, but now, unless the Government deny it, it will be severely reversed.
Only two countries in the European Union charge pensioners for prescriptions. We are one of the few European Union countries that does not charge for visits to GPs. Are we to be subjected to a harmonisation of GP and prescription charges to show ourselves as good Europeans?
We have been promised—and are likely to see in the Budget next week—the abolition of tax breaks for pensioners who have taken out private health care insurance. That is yet another example of false economy. Those people who, as a result, will not be able to pay for private health care will be added to NHS waiting lists, just as those who are unable to go on the assisted places scheme will add to the supposed overcrowding in many classrooms.
It is clear that we are starting to see the Government's hidden agenda. They want to claw back money from the elderly and the vulnerable to make up for the shortcomings of their commitments. They want to make up for the enormous bill that the minimum wage will generate when it is introduced into the NHS: it will probably amount to more than £500 million. They want to make up for adding pensioners to waiting lists by scrapping the tax relief on their private health care policies, which will have a domino effect.
They want to make up for the enormous costs of abolishing GP fundholders and the massive disincentive to existing GP fundholders: they will no longer be responsible for their budgets, so why should they bother to keep within them? They want to make up for the costs of dismantling trusts and returning to the nanny state approach, so that the success of locally run, locally purchasing and locally planning hospital trusts will be crushed under the steamroller of centralised bureaucratic placemen. None of those things will add one iota to patient care and to the good of patients.
It is shameful that we have had to have this debate. It is more shameful that Ministers have treated with contempt this opportunity to allay the fears of my constituents, especially the sick and the elderly.

Mr. David Lock: I am grateful for the chance to make my maiden speech on the important issue of health. Bearing in mind the time, I shall be shorter than I might otherwise have been, but I hope that brevity will assist in the quality of the speech.
It is a privilege to be sent to the House to represent the people of Wyre Forest. The constituency covers north-west Worcestershire, including the towns of Kidderminster, Stourport, Bewdley and many surrounding villages. Bewdley is a delightful mediaeval town nestling in the Severn with a well-deserved reputation as a tourist venue. It has an excellent festival. Kidderminster and Stourport have long traditions in the carpet industry. The factories may not be as numerous as in earlier years, but people in Kidderminster know the difference between a woven and a tufted carpet like no one else in Britain.
The industry has suffered in recent years, but we have some fine companies that are investing in a confident future. They include Brintons—a predecessor of mine in the constituency, Sir Talton Brinton, was the second member of the Brinton family to represent Kidderminster—and Tomkinsons and Victoria, which are investing in the future to provide secure jobs for the highly skilled work force in the area.
I thank and pay tribute to my predecessor, Anthony Coombs, who held the seat for 10 years. He was a diligent constituency Member: he became someone on whom his

constituents could count, and he was always most courteous in his dealings with me. His concern for his constituents has risen above his disappointment at losing his seat. He was gracious at the count, and has been very co-operative in handing over constituency case files. I am grateful for his assistance in breaking me in to this most unusual but privileged of jobs.
This debate, however, is about the NHS. In Worcestershire, we have a health authority that is in deficit—one of 59 such authorities. The trust that runs Wyre Forest's only hospital, Kidderminster general, is carefully managed; but it is in deficit, and the fact that it is an agreed deficit, anticipated in the budget, does not remove that deficit. For years the trust has been spending in the hope of rises in future years, but its hopes were dashed each time by the previous Government. A review is in progress at the moment, but I am confident that it will uphold the position of smaller hospitals such as Kidderminster. It is an impressive hospital with an excellent accident and emergency department, and I am sure that the strong arguments in support of it will be maintained.
In the short time available to me, let me say that we shall need—among other things—a serious national debate on priorities for the health service. For too long, doctors have been asked to make all the choices, and service provision is patchy across the country. The market beloved of Adam Smith and the Conservative party is an amoral device, and many issues in health care require moral decisions.
I wish to raise four specific matters. First, what will be the weighting between new drugs and established treatments? The former may offer the possibility of better results for the few, while the latter may benefit larger numbers at lower cost. What of social factors, such as bad housing—and smoking, which kills 1,600 a year in my constituency and adds half a million pounds to the costs at Kidderminster general hospital? The better a person's circumstances, the more treatment may help that person from an objective point of view; but it cannot be right to refuse treatment to the poor while allowing it to those in better circumstances.
What of the elderly? The fact that so many people are living longer is a tribute to the success of medicine, but is there to be a cut-off date? What of specialist treatments, which are vital to the few but ignored by the many? As a parent, I know the joys of children, but what level of funding should we give fertility treatment?
Those are difficult issues. We have a national health service now, but there is a lottery of care across the country. In each of the examples that I have given, different policies are pursued by different health authorities in different parts of the country. We need a national debate on priorities in health care—a debate way outside the confines of the narrow motion that we are discussing—and I am confident that the new Government are prepared to embrace such a debate. We also need a debate that goes beyond the medical profession and the Government, so that the people can have a say in decisions about the people's choices for the people's NHS.
This debate on charges is a tiny part of a much larger debate. I have every confidence that Ministers have the ability, the wisdom and the courage to face those difficult issues in the months and years ahead.

Mr. Michael Jack: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) on his splendid maiden speech. He will be a great asset to the Opposition Whips because he did exactly what they told him to do by cutting his speech to leave time for the winding-up speeches. I thank him for that.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) on his comeback speech. He made a telling contribution; during his absence from the House he lost nothing of his incisive ability to get to the heart of the matter. He exposed the Secretary of State for what he is—the purveyor of large amounts of smoke, a screen and waffle. He did not respond to any of the Opposition's substantive points.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on his speech and thank him for his kind words about his predecessor, Bob Dunn. Mr. Dunn will be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments and I am pleased to know that we have another doctor in the House.
In a telling contribution, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) showed that he will be a real handful for the Labour Whips because within seconds of rising he asked for money. That is dangerous, and not only the Minister without Portfolio but the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have a word with him.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) made kind comments about Keith Hampson and I was delighted to hear what he said about Leeds. I know the city well and he spoke of it with passion and conviction. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest mentioned Anthony Coombs and it would be remiss of me not to thank him for those kind words. He also made some interesting comments about challenges for the national health service.
There were some useful and thoughtful Opposition speeches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) spoke from his great experience and properly drew the House's attention to the challenges that will face the NHS in the 21st century. He was right to speak about the long term. The theme of the debate was to try to prise from the Government their short-term thinking, never mind their long-term thinking, and that proved extremely difficult. The Secretary of State, a senior Minister, failed lamentably to rise to the challenge of answering straightforward questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) delivered another of her well-crafted and perceptive speeches in which she listed some of the Government's pledge formulations. I shall add to her list the third formulation of the amendment. Already the ground continues to shift and I shall speak later about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) put his finger on the important issue of charging and, in a way, he associated himself with the speech by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) because they both got to the heart of the matter. If the Government's endless wish list of possibilities is to be anything more than that, and if they hope to satisfy the ever-louder cries of their Back Benchers, they will have to find more money. The platitudinous approach to health care policy will not do.
In his reply to allegations about charging, the Secretary of State said that the Government were going back to the basics of the health service. It is interesting to do that.

I commend to the Secretary of State, who is a good socialist, Aneurin Bevan's biography. When Gaitskell got into the Treasury he had the then Secretary of State for Health for breakfast, lunch and tea. It was a typical Treasury pressure job. The Secretary of State was told, "You are spending too much. Where is more money to come from?" We know what happened. Bevan eventually capitulated and charges came in.
That was the response then, and if the Government intend to go back to basics in the health service, we are entitled to conclude that that is exactly what they will do now. Indeed, the Secretary of State had better be warned that, even if he is bold enough to go down the route of charges under pressure from the Treasury—and we believe that he is, as he has offered no evidence to the contrary this evening—he will have his just desserts. He has said nothing to convince us that money raised through charges would do other than go straight into the Treasury's coffers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon put his finger on the truth when he pointed out that Mr. Nicholas Timmins, an experienced and knowledgeable journalist, had flushed out the Government's objectives on charges. His article makes it absolutely clear that the Department of Health is examining hotel costs and general practitioner visits. Those are not new; they were there in 1947 and in 1948. It has just taken the Labour party a little time to return to its original agenda of the founding fathers of the NHS.
Until the Secretary of State or the Minister of State has the courage to rise at the Dispatch Box and tell the House straightforwardly what their plans are, we have every justification for believing that charges will be introduced. Indeed, more justification was presented to us in the Secretary of State's statement to the House. He told us that in London we were going to have
top-quality primary care … top-quality continuing care
and
top-quality mental health services".
What does he mean by all this top-quality business? Does he mean the best in the world or a service that is better than what we have at present? If he does mean that, and bearing in mind the fact that he is wedded to our spending proposals, by definition he will require some more money. That is why he is thinking of charges. He knows full well that that is the only route out of the dilemma and the traps that he has set himself through his own rhetoric.
The Secretary of State said:
All that is in line with the Government's vision of a range of top-quality services for all Londoners."—[Official Report, 20 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 544.]
So that we might get to the truth of the matter, will the Minister of State assure the House tonight that he will define numerically what the Secretary of State means by "top-quality"? Will he actually let us know what that means and how much these things will cost?

Mr. Dobson: The Tories do not know what it means.

Mr. Jack: The Secretary of State is a statistical ignoramus because he is unable to understand what it means to define, in money terms, the sort of meaningless rhetoric that he puts forward.
Perhaps I should refresh the Secretary of State's memory of what he said earlier today. He went to the seaside for an away-day and made a speech on health, in which he went even further. Not content now just with London, he is promising us top-quality primary scare—[Interruption.] [HON. MEMBERS: "A scare."] My hon. Friends have flushed out Ministers, who talk about top-quality continuing care and top-quality mental health.
In his speech in Brighton, the Secretary of State ruled out any closures of any local hospitals—[Interruption.] Well, that is what he said in Brighton today. Do not shake your head like that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The occupant of the Chair does not have responsibility for these matters.

Mr. Jack: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you for your kind words of advice.
In his speech, the Secretary of State made it extremely clear that he was welding himself effectively to an unchanged health service. That, in its own way, will have costs.
The Secretary of State tells us that he wants to have an excellent information service. The Government must come clean and tell us what all this means in terms of something that is quantifiable. We know that such promises will cost a lot of money and we have every justification in asking the Government for solid answers on how much this wish list will cost. Will the Minister of State give me an assurance tonight, first, that he will publish, in pursuit of his obligations to open government, the questions that will be the subject of this fundamental expenditure review? So that we may show the validity of our charge that the Government wish to introduce charges to raise revenue to fulfil their wish list, will the Secretary of State publish the questions that he is going to pose as part of the review that he mentioned in his press release?
We are entitled to believe that the Government of the day will require more money for this impressive list of ideas. In Scotland on Sunday, Mr. John Lloyd put forward this view:
We can be reasonably sure of one thing. The review will require more payment by the individual for his or her treatment in some way at some time soon. It will further breach the principle of a service free at the point of use.
The Government's amendment talks about access to the NHS based on need. "Access" is an interesting word. Access refers to the way in. No Labour Member has talked about what happens on the way out. On the way out is where one pays the bills—the new bills from the Labour Government.
The Minister of State puts his head in his hands, but that is just a simple way of trying to hide the fact that we have flushed out the truth of this matter. [Interruption.] The Minister is now barracking—another standard technique to avoid telling the truth.
I remind the Minister that the NHS chief executive, Mr. Alan Langlands, told us that
we must look at the case for further investment in the NHS with the right combination of compassion and hard-headedness.
"Hard-headedness" is a code word for charges. That is clear.
The Government's amendment criticises the previous Government. I expect that the Minister of State, in an effort to rebut the accusation with regard to charges, will once again go through the same litany as the Secretary of State on the subject of NHS bureaucracy.
I want the Minister to assure me that he will look at the staff salary costs for the NHS in 1992–93 at the time of the previous election. He will see that that came to 6.8 per cent. of the spending on the NHS. I want him to compare those figures, as I did this afternoon in the Library, with the figures for 1997– 98, taking into account the £350 million reduction in staff costs occasioned by the terms of the 1992 legislation. The effect of that legislation was to reduce the bureaucracy costs of the NHS from 6.8 per cent. in 1992– 93 to 6.5 per cent. in 1997– 98.
That shows that Conservative policies contributed more money to front-line patient care, creating a health service of which we can be proud and which delivers more patient care than ever before, with a greater percentage of GDP than ever before. They delivered a health service that is not rotten with bureaucracy, because we cut out the problem and made more money available.
If we have done all that, we are entitled to return to the central issue of charges. if the Government are to deliver their incredibly long wish list, they will need more money. They have to tell us the funding deficit in the health service so that we can judge their actions in the future and know exactly where they will get the money. We believe, because they have not said otherwise, that it will come from charges.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I welcome the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) to his new responsibility as shadow Health Minister. I enjoyed working opposite him when he was in the Treasury and I look forward to working with him now. I urge him to be slightly cautious about bandying statistics around on bureaucracy in the NHS. I remind him that the Conservative party is not the enemy of red tape in the NHS but the friend of bureaucracy in the NHS. The Conservatives managed to spend an extra £900 million in extra administrative salaries alone in the first six years of this decade. Far from cutting red tape in the NHS, they increased it.
We have had a fairly a wide-ranging debate. The right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) talked about the cost of care for the elderly and the problems caused to the NHS by a growing elderly population. There are some dangers in being a prophet of doom, because the NHS has coped admirably with growing numbers of elderly people in every year since it was created in 1948. Even the previous Administration, in the evidence that they gave to the Select Committee on Health in the last Session, managed to recognise that, while the number of elderly people will continue to grow, we are past the worst.
Like many Tory Members, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) quoted the Labour party's manifesto from the last general election. I am pleased that she did so. She asked me for an undertaking that we would honour our pledges in that manifesto, and I give her that undertaking unequivocally. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) talked,


unwisely in my view, about prescription charges for pensioners. I caution him about lecturing us about increasing charges for pensioners when it was the Conservative Government who introduced value added tax on fuel, which so penalised pensioners.
As always, the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), was the font of much advice, even urging me to beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer for more cash. I am grateful to him for one thing at least—his support for a review of the anomalies in prescription charges and of NHS spending. However, I remind him that we shall keep not only our manifesto pledges on the health service but our pledges and promises on other issues, not least taxation.
I deal now with the maiden speeches made by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friends the Members for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Mc Walter) and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) talked about the difficult problems they face in their areas because of the legacy that the NHS inherited. They talked in particular about the burden of debt facing health authorities and trusts. It is a difficult legacy, one that we shall have to tackle in the coming months, but they will be aware, as much I am, that there are no easy solutions or quick fixes to the problem.
From his own experience as a GP, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) rightly talked about the anomalies in the current exemption regime for prescription charges. I am grateful for his support for the review that we shall be undertaking.
Finally, in an impressive maiden speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best), used a very important phrase about the sort of national health service we want. He said that we want a one-class NHS—a first-class NHS.
I deal briefly with the two other maiden speeches we have heard this evening, which were made by Opposition Front Benchers. I am sorry for the Opposition health team's having to make their debut on the NHS because they have been forced to defend the indefensible—the Tories' record on health and their running down of the NHS. The Tories leave a quite appalling legacy—[Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members do not want to listen because they do not want to face the truth about record waiting lists, record cuts in capital expenditure and record debt in the NHS.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked us what we were going to do about the private finance initiative. We shall do one very simple thing—we will make it work and get hospitals built. It will take more than eight weeks for the new Government to put right the Tory record of 18 years, so we will not take any lectures from Opposition Members about our handling of the NHS.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Of course the Government have to deal with some matters quickly, but if the Minister thinks that the PFI is the solution that will get more money from the private sector to the NHS, he is badly mistaken. A far more fundamental review is needed; the PFI is not the way forward.

Mr. Milburn: I have two comments in reply to that. There is a queue of 43 major acute hospital projects for which communities up and down the country have been waiting for funding not just from the private finance

initiative, but, for dozens of years in many cases, from public sector capital. We are determined to give some of those communities the hospitals that they need. Of course we shall consider reviewing the private finance initiative in the longer term to bring in a modernised form of public-private partnership to the national health service.

Sir Peter Emery: I have listened very carefully to the Minister. He has suggested that the Government would be able to have many more hospitals built through the private finance initiative. We are having a reasonable debate. How many hospitals does he expect to get built under the PFI?

Mr. Milburn: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will be more than his Government got built.
The Tories lost the general election on I May for one simple reason—they had lost the trust of the British people. Labour won because we won the trust of the British people. On no issue is that more true than on the national health service. After all, the NHS was created by a Labour Government. I remind Conservative Members that that was done in the teeth of Conservative opposition.
Labour also warned that the introduction of the internal market would undermine the principles of the NHS and would cause a public outcry. No wonder the best advice that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) could give in his famous memorandum to colleagues was to aim for "zero media coverage" about the national health service.
Is that any surprise when hospital was set against hospital, doctor against doctor and patient against patient? The NHS has been strangled in red tape, with enough invoices from general practitioners alone to stretch from London to Paris and back. In the two-tier health service, access to care depends on the lottery of patients' post codes and their GP practices. More patients have been forced to go private because the NHS was not there when they needed it. We have had a Secretary of State for Health who was reported as being prepared to support a private GP service. The Tory Administration saw nothing wrong in privatising clinical services at Stonehaven hospital.
In a debate about NHS charges, let us also remind ourselves who slapped charges on dental checks and eye tests. It was not the Labour party or a Labour Government, but the Conservatives. The Tory Government also increased prescription charges by almost 1,000 per cent. during their period in office. Charges rose every year from 1979. For the Conservatives to accuse us of undermining the national health service is, to put it at its politest, hypocrisy of the highest order.

Mr. Maples: rose

Mr. Milburn: Before the hon. Gentleman jumps up and down any more, trying to intervene on me in the few moments that I have left to speak, I remind him that a bit of humility would not come amiss from the Conservatives. The public know that his charges are hypocrisy, as do staff in the national health service.
We will keep our manifesto promises. Indeed, we are already keeping them. We promised to cut NHS bureaucracy, and we are—by £100 million this year alone. We promised to invest in front-line patient services, and


we are doing so. We promised to scrap the absurd internal market in the NHS, and we are doing so. We promised to bring back fairness in treatment and funding, and we are doing so. Above all, we promised that access to the NHS would be based on need and not on ability to pay. We stand by that commitment to the historical principle of the national health service. I can tell Opposition Members that we will do nothing to betray that trust.
We promised something else in our manifesto—a comprehensive spending review. That review will be framed in the context of our manifesto. We will honour the pledges that we gave to the people of Britain—

Mr. James Arbuthnot: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 328.

Division No. 40]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Flight, Howard


Amess, David
Forth, Eric


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Arbuthnot, James
Fox, Dr Liam


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fraser, Christopher


Baldry, Tony
Gale, Roger


Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)
Garnier, Edward


Bercow, John
Gibb, Nick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gill, Christopher


Blunt, Crispin
Gillen, Mrs Cheryl


Body, Sir Richard
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gray, James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Green, Damian


Brady, Graham
Greenway, John


Brazier, Julian
Grieve, Dominic


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hague, Rt Hon William


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hammond, Philip


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Nick


Butterfill, John
Hayes, John


Cash, William
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
Horam, John


Clappison, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hunter, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Collins, Tim
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Colvin, Michael
Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Johnson Smith,


Gran, James
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Curry, Rt Hon David
Key, Robert


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Day, Stephen
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lansley, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Leigh, Edward


Duncan Smith, Iain
Letwin, Oliver


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Evans, Nigel
Lidington, David


Faber, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fabricant, Michael
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fallon, Michael
Loughton, Tim



Luff, Peter





Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Soames, Nicholas


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


MacKay, Andrew
Spicer, Sir Michael


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Spring, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, Sir David
Steen, Anthony


Malins, Humfrey
Streeter, Gary


Maples, John
Swayne, Desmond


Mates, Michael
Syms, Robert


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


May, Mrs Theresa
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Merchant, Piers
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, William


Nicholls, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Norman, Archie
Trend, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Tyrie, Andrew


Page, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Paice, James
Walter, Robert


Paterson, Owen
Wardle, Charles


Pickles, Eric
Waterson, Nigel


Prior, David
Wells, Bowen


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Robathan, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Robertson, Laurence (Tewkb'ry)
Wilkinson, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Willetts, David


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ruffley, David
Woodward, Shaun


St Aubyn, Nick
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sayeed, Jonathan



Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Tellers for the Ayes


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Mr. John Whittingdale


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cann, Jamie


Ainger, Nick
Caplin, Ivor


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Casale, Roger


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Cawsey, Ian


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Chaytor, David


Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Church, Ms Judith


Ashton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Barnes, Harry
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Beard, Nigel
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Coaker, Vernon


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bennett, Andrew F
Cohen, Harry


Benton, Joe
Connarty, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Berry, Roger
Cooper, Ms Yvette


Best, Harold
Corbett, Robin


Betts, Clive
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Corston, Ms Jean


Blizzard, Robert
Cousins, Jim


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cranston, Ross


Boateng, Paul
Crausby, David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cummings, John


Bradshaw, Ben
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Darvill, Keith


Buck, Ms Karen
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Burden, Richard
Davidson, Ian


Burgon, Colin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Byers, Stephen
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dean, Ms Janet


Canavan, Dennis







Denham, John
Johnson. Alan (Hull W)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Drew, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Edwards, Huw
Keen, Alan (Feltham)


Efford, Clive
Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)


Ellman, Ms Louise
Kemp, Fraser


Ennis, Jeff
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna
Khabra, Piara S


Flint, Ms Caroline
Kidney, David


Flynn, Paul
Kilfoyle, Peter


Follett, Ms Barbara
King, Andy (Rugby)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Foulkes, George
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Galbraith, Sam
Lepper, David


Galloway, George
Leslie, Christopher


Gapes, Mike
Levitt, Tom


Gardiner, Barry
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Livingstone, Ken


Gerrard, Neil
Lock, David


Gibson, Dr Ian
Love, Andy


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McAllion, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
McAvoy, Thomas


Godsiff, Roger
McCabe, Stephen


Goggins, Paul
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonagh, Ms Siobhain


Grant, Bernie
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)
McFall, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Grocott, Bruce
McIsaac, Ms Shona


Grogan, John
McKenna, Ms Rosemary


Gunnell, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hain, Peter
MacShane, Denis


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McWalter, Tony


Hanson, David Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McWilliam, John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Healey, John
Marek, Dr John


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Heppell, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hill, Keith
Martlew, Eric


Hinchliffe, David
Maxton, John


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Meale, Alan


Hoey, Kate
Merron, Ms Gillian


Home Robertson, John
Michael, Alun


Hood, Jimmy
Milburn, Alan


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mitchell, Austin


Hope, Philip
Moffatt, Laura


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Howells, Dr Kim
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hurst, Alan
Mudie, George


Hutton, John
Mullin, Chris


Iddon, Brian
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Norris, Dan


Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)
O' Brien, Mike (N Warks)





O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Soley, Clive


O'Hara, Edward
Southworth, Ms Helen


Olner, Bill
Spellar, John


Organ, Mrs Diana
Squire, Ms Rachel


Osborne, Mrs Sandra
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stevenson, George


Pearson, Ian
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Perham, Ms Linda
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pickthall, Colin
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pike, Peter L
Stoate, Dr Howard


Plaskitt, James
Stott, Roger


Pollard, Kerry
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pond, Chris
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pope, Greg
Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)


Pound, Stephen
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Powell, Sir Raymond
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Primarolo, Dawn
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prosser, Gwyn
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Purchase, Ken
Timms, Stephen


Quin, Ms Joyce



Quinn, Lawrie
Tipping, Paddy


Radice, Giles



Rammell, Bill
Touhig, Don


Rapson, Syd
Trickett, Jon


Raynsford, Nick
Truswell, Paul


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rooker, Jeff
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rooney, Terry
Vaz, Keith


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rowlands, Ted
Walley, Ms Joan


Roy, Frank
Ward, Ms Claire


Ruane, Chris
Watts, David


Ruddock, Ms Joan
White, Brian


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wicks, Malcolm


Ryan, Ms Joan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Salter, Martin
Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Savidge, Malcolm
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wills, Michael


Shaw, Jonathan
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wise, Audrey


Singh, Marsha
Wood, Mike


Skinner, Dennis
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Worthington. Tony


Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Wyatt, Derek


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Snape, Peter
Mr. David Clelland.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 148.

Division No. 41]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Barnes, Harry


Ainger, Nick
Bayley, Hugh


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beard, Nigel


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Benton, Joe


Ashton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald


Atkins. Ms Charlotte
Berry, Roger



Best, Harold






Betts, Clive
Flynn, Paul


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Follett, Ms Barbara


Blizzard, Robert
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Boateng, Paul
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Galbraith, Sam


Bradshaw, Ben
Galloway, George


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gapes, Mike


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Gardiner, Barry


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Gerrard, Neil


Buck, Ms Karen
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burden, Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burgon, Corn
Godman, Dr Norman A


Byers, Stephen
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Golding, Mrs Llin


Canavan, Dennis
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Cann, Jamie
Grant, Bernie


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cawsey, Ian
Grogan, John


Chaytor, David
Gunnell, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Church, Ms Judith
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clapham, Michael
Hanson, David


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Healey, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heppell, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coaker, Vernon
Hill, Keith


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Cohen, Harry
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Connarty, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Cooper, Ms Yvette
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Hood, Jimmy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corston, Ms Jean
Hope, Philip


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cranston, Ross
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Crausby, David
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Hurst, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Hutton, John


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Iddon, Brian


Darvill, Keith
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Davidson, Ian
Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dean, Ms Janet
Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)


Denham, John
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Doran, Frank
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dowd, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Drew, David
Keen, Alan (Feltham)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keen, Mrs Ann (Brenfford)


Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kemp, Fraser


Edwards, Huw
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Efford, Clive
Khabra, Piara S


Ellman, Ms Louise
Kidney, David


Ennis, Jeff
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna
King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)


Flint, Ms Caroline
Kumar, Dr Ashok





Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rammell, Bill


Lepper, David
Rapson, Syd


Leslie, Christopher
Raynsford, Nick


Levitt, Tom
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Linton, Martin
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Livingstone, Ken
Rooker, Jeff


Lock, David
Rooney, Terry


Love, Andy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAllion, John
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Roy, Frank


McCabe, Stephen
Ruane, Chris


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McDonagh, Ms Siobhain
Ryan, Ms Joan


Macdonald, Calum
Salter, Martin


McFall, John
Savidge, Malcolm


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sedgemore, Brian


McIsaac, Ms Shona
Shaw, Jonathan


McKenna, Ms Rosemary
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Singh, Marsha


MacShane, Denis
Skinner, Dennis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McWatter, Tony
Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marek, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Spellar, John


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stevenson, George


Martlew, Eric
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Maxton, John
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Meale, Alan
Stinchcombe, Paul


Merron, Ms Gillian
Stoate, Dr Howard


Michael, Alun
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Milburn, Alan
Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)


Mitchell, Austin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moffatt, Laura
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd VW)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morley, Elliot
Timms, Stephen


Moms, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Tipping, Paddy


Mudie, George
Touhig, Don


Mullin, Chris
Trickett, Jon Truswell, Paul


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Norris, Dan
Vaz. Keith


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Vis, Dr Rudi


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Ward, Ms Claire


O'Hara, Edward
Watts, David


Olner, Bill
White, Brian


Organ, Mrs Diana
Wicks, Malcolm


Osborne, Mrs Sandra
Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Pearson, Ian
Wills, Michael


Perham, Ms Linda
Winnick, David


Pickthall, Colin
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Pike, Peter L
Wise, Audrey


Plaskitt, James
Wood, Mike


Pollard, Kerry
Woolas, Phil


Pond, Chris
Worthington, Tony


Pope, Greg
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Pound, Stephen
Wyatt, Derek


Powell, Sir Raymond
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Mr. David Clelland.


Primarolo, Dawn



Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken



Quin, Ms Joyce



Quinn, Lawrie



Radice, Giles







NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Amess, David
Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Johnson Smith,


Arbuthnot, James
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Key, Robert


Baldry, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Bercow, John
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lansley, Andrew


Blunt, Crispin
Leigh, Edward


Body, Sir Richard
Letwin, Oliver


Boswell, Tim
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Lidington, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Brady, Graham
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Brazier, Julian
Loughton, Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Luff, Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Burns, Simon
MacKay, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cash, William
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Madel, Sir David


Clappison, James
Malins, Humfrey


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Maples, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Mates, Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Collins, Tim
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Colvin, Michael
May, Mrs Theresa


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Merchant, Piers


Cran, James
Moss, Malcolm


Curry, Rt Hon David
Nicholls, Patrick


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Norman, Archie


Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)
Ottaway, Richard


Day, Stephen
Page, Richard


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Paice, James


Duncan, Alan
Paterson, Owen


Duncan Smith, lain
Pickles, Eric


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Prior, David


Evans, Nigel
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
Robathan, Andrew


Fabricant, Michael
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fallon, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Flight, Howard
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Forth, Eric
Ruffley, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
St Aubyn, Nick


Fox, Dr Liam
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fraser, Christopher
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gale, Roger
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Garnier, Edward
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gibb, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Gill, Christopher
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spicer, Sir Michael


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Spring, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gray, James
Steen, Anthony


Green, Damian
Streeter, Gary


Greenway, John
Swayne, Desmond


Grieve, Dominic
Syms, Robert


Hague, Rt Hon William
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hawkins, Nick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hayes, John
Thompson, William


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David


Horam, John
Trend, Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Tyrie, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Viggers, Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Walter, Robert


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles



Waterson, Nigel





Wells, Bowen
Woodward, Shaun


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilkinson,John
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Willetts, David
Mr. John Whittingdale.


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to the historic principle of the National Health Service that if someone is ill or injured there will be a national health service to help, with access to it based on need, not on ability to pay or on who their general practitioner happens to be or on where they live; notes the steps which are being taken to end the internal market, which is unfair both to patients and staff and which has resulted in massive sums being consumed by bureaucracy; welcomes the shift of funds into patient care, including cancer treatment, instead of paperwork; and looks forward to further changes which will ensure that once again the National Health Service provides the best health services for all and is ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
That Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. Michael Foster (Hastings and Rye), Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Tom Levitt, Mr. Terry Lewis, Ms Shona Mclsaac, Mr. Robert Sheldon, Miss Ann Widdecombe and Mr. Alan Williams be members of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

PETITION

Vivisection

Mr. Mike Hancock: I have great pleasure in presenting to the House a petition put together by the National Anti-Vivisection Society. It is long overdue.
The petition calls for a substantial investigation into how the current legislation operates and reads:
Therefore your petitioners pray that your humble House will urge the Government to
1. Make available technical details (not names or locations) of all applicants for project licences under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and allow individuals and organisations to oppose such licences on scientific and ethical grounds, and offer suggestions for non-animal procedures.
2. Provide details of all breaches of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and the action taken, in the format of a short, detailed and easily accessible public report. If law-breakers are not prosecuted, reasons should be given. If the Government's codes of practice are breached, full details should be published, together with the details of action taken. 
That petition was signed by 105,000 citizens of the United Kingdom, led by Miss Fiona Deal of London.

To lie upon the Table.

Gulf War Syndrome

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Dr. Ian Gibson: It might be asked why we need to revisit the subject of Gulf war syndrome, given that it is more than six years since the end of the Persian Gulf war, and the Ministry of Defence is funding two epidemiological studies into the health of Gulf war veterans and their families.
The first of the studies will aim to establish whether there are unusual patterns of ill health among the veterans, and the second will examine whether they are experiencing adverse reproductive outcomes. A third study, with the support of the United States Department of Defence, will carry out a detailed epidemiological study into the patterns of illness. The studies will not necessarily identify causes and will take some three years to complete—they should be completed by 2000.
A novel investigation, promoted and planned by the Government, will be funded; it will examine the health effects of having been subjected to multiple vaccinations and chemical medications to negate the effects of nerve gases, in recognition of the possibility of synergistic interactive effects between the two onslaughts.
The reason for revisiting the problem is that we are just beginning to see the emergence of scientific research that addresses the long-term health effects on the service men and women who took part in that war. Although the information applies to studies in the United States, it is of considerable interest.
Clearly, the troops were exposed to several potentially serious physical and psychological stresses. Those included multiple immunisations, pyridostigmine prophylaxis, pollution from oil fires and the liberal use of pesticides, such as organophosphates and insect repellents. The list continues to grow.
As the war occurred in inhospitable surroundings and there was the recurring threat of exposure to chemical and microbiological weapons—possibly sarin, which was used in the Tokyo underground, and mustard gas—adverse effects on health would be unsurprising.
Overriding all the research, however, is the serious complication of defining Gulf war syndrome. A syndrome is generally defined as a group of symptoms that occur together and characterise a particular disease.
Many syndromes are known to medical science and are relatively easy to define. The recorded symptoms in the case of the veterans, however, have been so wide ranging, from depression to cognitive dysfunction, that researchers are tempted to break them down into three or four separate syndromes affecting perhaps three or four separate organ systems.
One of the scientists stated:
the syndromes are due to subtle brain, spinal cord and nerve damage, but not stress." 
That conclusion is disputed by others. At present, as there is no clear specifically associated illness—a cancer, for example—we cannot say whether Gulf war syndrome is one syndrome.
It is clear, however, that so far in the new studies, which are the first to study human populations, there is strong evidence of a health problem associated with service in the Gulf. Given memory recall and poor records, it is difficult to associate any particular exposure or exposures with a defined symptom.
A body of evidence suggests that each substance in itself could cause a range of problems. Organophosphate pesticides are known to have chronic neurological effects on agricultural workers, and research into longer-term low-level exposures is suggestive, but not as consistent as studies on chronically poisoned subjects. There is some evidence, for example, of sub-clinical effects on the central and peripheral nervous systems of sheep dippers.
A worrying element in the saga appeared in today's newspapers, which reported that tents from the Gulf war, which were sprayed with organophosphates, were sold to scout troops in this country. I should be grateful for clarification from the Minister on the matter, and I hope that he can go some way towards laying to rest the concerns about that use of organophosphates.
A really interesting find, which may point to a final resolution of the problem, is that pyridostigmine can cross the blood-brain barrier and affect central nervous system function under stress conditions. It is clear that the toxicological, biochemical and congenital effects of these compounds and vaccinations, singly or together, were poorly understood before the troops from the United States and from this country were subjected to them.
Although, as a scientist, I could get embroiled for hours in deliberations on and details of the biological and medical effects, we must admit that unravelling the roles of the various factors is a complex task. It may be more important to look at the individuals who are ill—as many become ill—and decide what to do. After all, we may reach the same end effect of any particular health condition via various routes, each of which is initiated and maintained by different factors.
I thought about that matter today in the context of the controversy over the increase in cancers that people predict some groups will suffer. I thought also about the dramatic increase in prostate cancer in East Anglia and how prostate cancer became a popular study in the United States when Stormin' Norman contracted it. The Gulf war had been shown on television, and there was suddenly a great interest in that type of study. I could not help but correlate his problem with that of the Gulf veterans. I do not mean to imply that the general's prostate tumours resulted from his participation in the Gulf war, but we must know what factors are causing the increase in prostate tumours.
There is nothing sacrosanct about three years' research—studies may take a lot longer. We may find that the selection of projects is rather biased and that, for example, clinical studies on the immune response of the veterans who were exposed to multiple vaccinations and pyridostigmine are the source of relevant data. For example, it is relevant to ask: do multiple vaccinations associate with immunological abnormalities and do they produce a satisfactory antibody response—which is a marker of immunity? Developing correlations of Gulf war illness with such effects seems as appropriate a research subject as those being researched.
All that is fine. However, as one of the British researchers has said:
all the new studies will not give us all the answers but will at least tell us where we should be going." 
He continues:
It is a pity they were not able to start sooner".
The studies at this stage are hypothesis generating and not hypothesis testing. We should also take account of a further complication, as US research defines health differences between reservists and Regulars. Britain made far less use of reservists.
Where does that leave the situation? The medical assessment programme continues to give individual attention to the vital health problems associated with Gulf war service and, although it has been criticised, it has at least blazed a trail for future surveillance strategy.
Some emerging problems in legal compensation merit our immediate attention. Hon. Members will know that there are two possible sources of help for armed forces personnel who believe that they are ill as a result of service in the Gulf war: a war pension from the Department of Social Security or a pension from the armed forces pension scheme. In practice, most of the claims from Gulf war veterans who argue that they are suffering from the syndrome relate to the DSS. Although it is true that, by May 1997, 140 of 279 claims from service men who linked their illness to service in the Gulf had been cleared—resulting in 124 awards in the service men's favour—another problem is fast approaching.
Seven years after the end of service is the cut-off point at which the burden of proof shifts to the claimant—the service man or woman. I acknowledge that, where there is reasonable doubt, the service man or woman will get the benefit of that doubt. However, as the end of the seven years approaches fast for many service men and women, the Secretary of State must show beyond reasonable doubt that the injury was not attributable to, or aggravated by, service.
There will be no problem if the research establishes a link between service in the Gulf and the illnesses of which veterans complain. However, if it concludes that there is no link or it is neutral on the subject, difficulties will clearly arise. In March 1997, the Defence Select Committee concluded:
It's a matter of deep regret that so many ill Gulf veterans were left to seek compensation through potentially protracted court proceedings. We are not convinced that it is always right for veterans to have to prove negligence in respect of compensation for injuries sustained on official duty. There are other mechanisms such as no fault compensation which may be appropriate in certain circumstances." 
I believe that 1,228 notices of intention to claim for legal compensation under common law for causation and negligence have been filed by veterans. The Select Committee continued:
For those Gulf War veterans who can establish that they were exposed to OPs"— 
organophosphates, pesticides—
and that there is no other explanation for current illness we believe that there is a strong case for ex-gratia payment. We recommend that the Government makes such a payment." 

In the light of the uncertainties, the conclusions of the research, the time span allowed—three years—the obvious illness of Gulf war veterans and the seven year cut-off point for claims soon approaching, I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister is prepared to re-examine the question of payments, take legal opinion if necessary, examine previous similar problems that have been handled by the Government, and report back.
I believe that research must continue for however long it takes. It should be expanded to embrace other questions. Research should ensure that the problems to which I have drawn attention never happen again, and should lead to a more careful scientific and medical assessment of many of the compounds that pervade our lives.

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on his good fortune so early in his career in securing an Adjournment debate on such an important subject. There are few Members of this place who are qualified to speak with the authority that he does on this subject.
I congratulate also the two occupants of the Opposition Front Bench on their new positions. I refer to the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, late of transport and Ealing, Acton, who has transferred from bikes to tanks—the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—and his hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who is now, as I understand it, the shadow Armed Forces Minister. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post. It is unusual to have two such eminent members of the Opposition in their places so late at night. I can think only that they have taken the advice of the Glasgow police and decided to travel in twos on dangerous occasions.
We are dealing with an extremely important and grave matter for those who are affected by it. The Government share my hon. Friend's concern for veterans of the Gulf war who have, since their return from service in that conflict, fallen ill. We recognise that we owe them a debt of honour. Those men and women have served their country and have the right to expect us to discharge our duty as expeditiously and attentively as possible. I can assure them that the Government will be tireless in their efforts to understand the reasons for veterans' ill health.
My hon. Friend will be aware that last month, within a week of coming into the position that I now hold, I announced a package of new measures designed to address veterans' concerns. Some of those measures have been implemented. Others will take a little longer, but veterans can be confident that the Government will be a Government of action, not of words.
As a signal of the Government's determination to deal openly and honestly with Gulf veterans, I promised—I have already carried out the promise—to meet veterans' representatives, to listen to what they had to say and to ascertain how that should inform our actions. It is vital that veterans should have the opportunity to put their concerns to us directly, and it was not without a little pride that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I were able to invite them for the first time through the portals of the Ministry of Defence—their Ministry of Defence, not my or the Government's Ministry. I hope that more meetings will take place in future.
In dealing with the concerns of veterans, I try to approach them by making it plain from the start that there are some things—three in particular—that I cannot do. I want to make it plain to the House also that I cannot do them. It is not in my gift to do them. 
First, I cannot tell veterans exactly what is wrong with them. Secondly, I cannot tell them the cause or causes of their illness. Thirdly, because I cannot do the first and the second, I cannot tell them whether anyone is to blame. Those are matters that ultimately will be adjudicated upon only by those who have either the legal or medical experience to do so. 
However, although we may not know the exact nature of the link between those illnesses, we know that people are ill. I cannot tell them what caused their illnesses, but I have a duty to do everything I can to unearth the cause or causes. Although I do not know whether anyone will ultimately be shown to be to blame, I have a duty to those service men and women to give them the information as openly and as fully as possible, so as to allow them to decide whether someone is to blame and to take appropriate action, as any citizen would.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I pay tribute to the Minister and his colleagues for responding rapidly to the problem. He knows of my interest as chairman of the all-party organophosphates group. One of its members in the other place raised this matter in a debate last night. 
Will the Minister go one step further? I took to heart what he said about what he can tell veterans. Will he give a further undertaking that the Government will do everything in their power to learn lessons, so as to ensure that there is no repetition of what happened in the Gulf, and that people in other walks of life who may be exposed to the dangers of OPs are not affected? Will he give a specific undertaking that his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will work closely together to get to the bottom of the problem, because, as he well knows, they have not done so in the past?

Dr. Reid: I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance on both counts. However, I do not want explicitly or implicitly to lead him to believe that I know that organophosphates are the cause or causes of this illness or these illnesses. There are almost as many suggested causes as there are advocates in the House of the need to support the veterans. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of them. Depleted uranium and organophosphates are suggested causes. It is contended that the use or destruction of chemical weapons could be the cause. There is a range of possibilities, including vaccines and nerve agent pre-treatment tablets. Almost every week there is another suggestion: some believe that it is hysteria, whereas a potentially important paper that was produced last week suggested that there could be an interaction between tablets and organophosphates. 
I do not want to say that any of those supposed or alleged causes are, on medical grounds, more proven than others. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we shall try to learn lessons, and shall work closely with the other Departments that are examining the problem. 
I mentioned that I had taken some first steps. I met the veterans, and I said that we would explore the possible effects of vaccines and NAP tablets. We have made some

progress, and in the not too distant future I shall announce how we propose to carry out that research. I announced that we would put resources into reducing the backlog of people who were waiting for medical examinations, and we have made some progress on that. I made it clear that I would ask for a scientific explanation of the decisions taken to use injections and NAP tablets, and I shall make that public. 
Those measures are under way, and I shall make an announcement to the House on them and on a number of other issues when I respond to the Select Committee on Defence in the near future. I promise the House that it will be a matter not of months, but of weeks.
During my meeting with veterans' representatives and through other channels, veterans repeatedly voiced concern about the departure from the medical assessment programme of Group Captain Coker. That matter has been raised in this House and in the other place. Many veterans fear that he was removed from the programme because of his sympathy for them. Whatever the truth of those allegations, I know that he was liked and respected by the veterans, and many wanted him to return to the programme.
I undertook to speak to Group Captain Coker, and during our conversation I invited him back to participate in the medical assessment programme. He did not want to return from the United States, for understandable personal reasons. I offered him a place on an advisory team that will work with me, and he gladly accepted. I am pleased to say that he will come back to assist and advise me, as part of a team, on our general approach. That will not only help our efforts, but send another badly needed sign of good faith to the veterans. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North that it has been warmly welcomed on both counts by prominent representatives of the veterans.
My hon. Friend explored in some detail the problems that surround any attempt to research the illnesses now being experienced by some Gulf war veterans. The two epidemiological research studies that the Ministry of Defence is funding, on the recommendation of the Medical Research Council, remain a vital element of our response to veterans' health concerns, because ultimately they alone will tell us whether Gulf veterans are suffering from an excess of ill health, over and above what would have been expected had they not been deployed to the Gulf. I value the MRC's supervision of the programme. The results of all other research that might have a bearing on the veterans' illnesses will ultimately need to be set in the context of the results of that epidemiological research. 
However, I was not content—nor were the Government—to wait a further three years, until the results came out, before proceeding with any other relevant research. As my hon. Friend pointed out, last month I announced that new research would be carried out to examine the possible health effects of having multiple vaccinations and taking other medications concurrently. I hope that that research will shed light on the illnesses now experienced by some Gulf veterans, but it is also vital to inform any decision to use medical counter-measures should the same situation ever arise again. 
I was more than a little surprised, on those grounds alone, that nothing had been done in six years to find out the effect of the vaccines involved. More detailed


proposals on how the research should be carried out are currently being developed, and, as I have said, I hope to be able to report on progress when I reply to the Defence Committee's paper.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can we hear some explanation of why the process took so long? Endlessly, a number of then Opposition Members—including me—asked the right questions.

Dr. Reid: If I may quote the old song, there are sometimes more questions than answers, and we are still asking questions. I would like to tell my hon. Friend that I have the answers, but at least we are putting his questions to the test now, and I hope that that is an advance. 
As I said, there are a range of possible causes for a possible illness. One suggestion, which may be worthy of investigation, was published in The Lancet last week; I have mentioned it before. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North also raised the question of the effects of low-level exposure to organophosphate pesticides on human health, and the question whether that could be a contributing factor in the illnesses now seen in some Gulf veterans. Research is currently under way to try to determine those effects in the context of ill health claimed by some farm workers. As my hon. Friend said, it is sponsored jointly by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health and the Health and Safety Executive. 
The researchers are due to report in 1999, but the Government's present position is and must be that there is no firm evidence at this stage to support a link between low-level exposure to organophosphates and adverse health effects. I also stress that the popular image of Gulf veterans being exposed repeatedly to large quantities of pesticides was not borne out by the thorough investigation conducted last autumn, the result of which was published on 10 December. Nevertheless, we shall continue to work on that field of research, in conjunction with the other agencies that I mentioned.
Questions raised in this morning's press, and yesterday in another place, have given currency to the issue of military tents used in the Gulf that were then sent to scouts. I can tell hon. Members—including those who may have seen reports suggesting that users of MOD surplus tents risk being exposed to organophosphate pesticide that was sprayed on the canvas during the Gulf war—that the Minister for Defence Procurement gave a full answer to a question on the subject in another place on Monday. In view of the time, I do not intend to read that answer at length, but hon. Members can refer to the record.
Since that issue was raised, the scientific advice that I have sought and received on it has been reassuring. However, in view of public concern, today I asked my officials to contact the Scout Association to offer any assistance that the Ministry of Defence can provide. I am glad to tell the House that the tents that were reported as a source of illness have been identified by the association and, at its request, my officials will make arrangements for appropriate tests for the presence of organophosphate compounds. The work will be carried out expeditiously and the results made public as soon as possible.
While we await the results, I should like to reassure the House by reporting what was said in another place yesterday by the Minister for Defence Procurement: all the evidence suggests that, over time, the effects of organophosphates break down. That is why tents have to be continually sprayed. At the moment, there is no evidence to link any of the alleged effects to the alleged tents that were allegedly sprayed with organophosphates. Nevertheless, because of concern in the House and my own concern, we shall take them in and test them. I hope that that will reassure anyone who may be worried. The issue will be resolved quickly.
Many Gulf veterans are frustrated by what they see as woefully inadequate provision of information about what occurred in the Gulf. Medical records are incomplete, and the Government have not yet published full and frank accounts of many incidents during the conflict or of how the vaccination programme was put in place and implemented. That is precisely why I announced last month that I had asked for a full explanation of the scientific basis on which vaccinations were given to our troops.
I enter the caveat that, while I am keen to make a fresh and active start on the issue, I am adamant that I will not make promises that I cannot deliver. Some seven years after the conflict, we may have to accept that some parts of the story will never be known, some records will never be found and some may never have been compiled in the war. However, we shall honestly do everything we can. I am determined that what can be uncovered will be made public in due course in the context of the scientific explanation, although that will involve considerable effort and, perhaps in the long run, some embarrassment and pain.
The scale of the task in pulling together and collating all the information that could have a bearing on, for example, the vaccination programme is significant and it may take some time to complete. I assure the House that I have had full support from, and earnest work and almost tireless application to the task by, the Ministry's officials who have been charged with the work.
I shall deal briefly with war pensions and compensation. The issue of no-fault compensation for Gulf veterans was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North. All such issues will be revisited and progress reported in due course—in weeks rather than months—as part of our response to the Select Committee. I stress that many people do not appreciate that the war pensions scheme already effectively provides generous no-fault compensation to service personnel who have suffered illness or injury as a result of service of any kind.
I shall put the value of war pensions in perspective. My hon. Friend may care to note that a severely disabled single ex-service man can receive a total, tax-free war pension of more than £386 per week, including allowances. I invite my hon. Friend to capitalise that. He raised the issue of the seven-year limit. I fully understand that the burden of proof changes, seven years after the time one leaves the service. That affects only a small number of people in this case and is dealt with by another Department; I am sure that the matter will have been noted by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Social Security, which deals with those matters.
Many Gulf veterans who have applied for war pensions left the services only recently and the provision will apply to only a few. I know that there is great frustration over waiting times for assessment, and I hope that that has also been noted by those who deal with these matters in the Department of Social Security, where great efforts are made. However, I am sure that we can achieve more.
There are many leads to be followed and many questions remain unanswered. The Government are determined that no stone will be left unturned in our efforts to understand the reasons for the illnesses of Gulf veterans. My hon. Friend will appreciate that a fresh start has been made, but that it is only a start. I shall ensure that it is carried through. The country would expect us to do nothing less.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.